Posted on 12/16/2007 10:33:14 AM PST by JRochelle
How, exactly, can you tell?
That kind of tells me that the Bush family is probably behind Mitt.
And, I'm not confident that his stance on immigration is any different than the guy in the WH right now.
His answers are just too cutesy for comfort for my taste.
Golly gee, just by their records.
I have to go to family dinner tonight up in Liberty near Huntsville in the Ogden Valley, home of Fawn McKay Brodie.
http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/b/BRODIE,FAWN.html
I’m sure her spirits will linger there as we partake of overdone meat and (funeral) potatoes.
FYI, I’m not a Romney supporter.
Luckily, my mormon ancestors were great cooks and passed down some really good "home cooking German style" recipes, even though most of them were Danish.
Of course, the downside is, we are on the pudgy side ;)
Hopefully, this will finish him off.
And in Massachusetts, third-graders learn about "fisting"!
Mitt must be very proud.
Romney truly is a pathological liar, I am watching the tape and he just said to the people of America that he “thinks” that it is illegal for a parent to ask for ID of men that come to their home.
That is ridiculous on it’s face, I can ask anyone that wants to work at my house to show me their ID.
After all these years and all his campaigning as an immigration expert, and all his legal training, and his being the source of more than a years worth of national stories of his using illegals, he feigns ignorance on something so basic so that he can spread a lie.
I wonder if he would have forced the same on LDS hospitals?
http://copenhagen-plaza.hotel-rez.com/Copenhagen_Plaza_Photo_album_en.html
Four nights in this place beginning Saturday night will certainly take care of any weight problems. LOL
Wow, that is really beautiful, (she says as she turns green with envy!) Too bad you aren’t a plig....I’d enlist.
>>
Perhaps life is good in the ‘campaign’ of the Mittster, but it definitely is not for all those alive unborn children Mitt assisted in allowing the slaughter of with taxpayer funding in Massachusetts. What a guy, what a pro-life (Mitt’s life) guy. Those alive unborn must have been ‘leftovers’ or ‘extras’ like he stamped the alive embryos in IVF clinics not implanted in human uteruses. We just haven’t learned how to have Mormon-think, er, Mitt-think, have we Reaganesque.
>>
Assuming I have any idea what this convolution means, let’s extend it to a TRUE MEASURE of conservative thought.
Why, precisely now, not generally, why are the stalwart pro Life chest thumping conservative candidates for President not out firebombing abortion clinics at night when there is no danger of killing anyone? Why aren’t they on the sidewalks blocking entrance and getting arrested? And why aren’t you insisting that whoever your favorite ultra pro Life candidates are do this? Why do you acquiesce in the murder?
Let’s toss out the answers. It’s against the law. So what? What sort of TRUE PASSION is stopped by an immoral law? How can you possibly support a candidate who isn’t even willing to go to jail for his commitment to principle and passion?
Need maneuvering room? Sure, here is some. Because as president maybe he can do far more for the unborn than he can as a passionate firebrand blocking a sidewalk.
Now, after that is assimilated, let’s consider the two scenarios. One person won’t compromise his principles. He sits on that sidewalk and he blocks entrance. The other rationalizes his own abject failure to do so by claiming that he does not do so because being in jail is not an attribute the electorate finds attractive. Convenient rationale, that, and it lets the manufacturer of it sleep in comfortable hotel rooms rather than jail cells.
The point of all this is what? It is to show you the politics has a spectrum. it is not absolute. YOU have failed to refuse support to a candidate who does not make some personal sacrifices for the unborn. YOUR candidate has a squishy position on abortion. It is rightward of many other positions. It is leftward of some.
Are you kidding me?
You should be ashamed of yourself and your candidate...
"Look, I was an Independent during the time of Reagan/Bush. I am not trying to return to Reagan/Bush." (Mitt Romney, 1994 Senate Debate, Boston, MA, 10/25/94)
"I'm very clear I think, to the people across the Commonwealth - my "R" didn't stand so much for Republican as it does for reform." (Romney Video, accessed 9/19/07)
"I'm not running as the Republican view or a continuation of Republican values.
That's not what brings me to the race." (Romney Video, accessed 9/19/07)
"I wasn't a Ronald Reagan conservative." (Mitt Romney In Interview with Marc Ambinder,
"Romney Explains Himself," National Journal, 2/9/07)
"Hillary Clinton is very much right, it does take a village, and we are a village and we need to work together in a non-skeptical, non-finger-pointing way..." ("For City Problems, Future Solutions," The Boston Globe, 3/1/98)
Is that the recipe for Mitt’s Moral Relativism?
[spit]
Nobody's record is up to snuff. At least Romney has publicly repented of most of his stupidity.
Look at his tagline. He fancies himself as part of some kind of resistance movement! On a conservative website, he’s a resistor?
That says quite a lot right there.
So he claims.
“Because as president maybe he can do far more for the unborn than he can as a passionate firebrand blocking a sidewalk.” ... Well, if his enabling the abortion slaughter in Massachusetts is any indication, I’m sure he can do so much more as President! Maroon ...
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.