Romney Meets Russert (Romney utterly Clintonian)

Spectator Blog ^ | 12/16/2007 | Philip Klien

[JRochelle]

Read this.

Clear and convincing evidence.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1940324/posts

[Puppage]

--On guns, he may have gotten himself in trouble, in an attempt to diffuse the flip-flop label, by standing by his support for the Brady Bill and the 1994 assault weapons ban.

He's toast

[Owen]

There are no minds to be changed in politics among those most opinionated. The only thing that will have people rally to Romney’s support will be the exhaustion of campaign budgets of others.

The trial by fire continues. This guy has a crisp organization of committed people who, like him, are chock full of competence. Post nomination, in a year when the GOP donor base has closed its pocketbook, only Romney will not have to drain money from the campaigns of down ticket races and enable the GOP to either minimize seat loss or maybe even pick up a few. Only Romney can compete with the Democrat fund raising machine that is out raising the GOP by enormous proportions historically.

In the end, a loser’s principles have utterly zero impact on society. Winning matters. Never forget it. Mitt Romney is hugely rightward of Obama and Hillary. His commitment to traditional family values is the best available measure of conservative perspective. Contrast his family in the White House with Hillary and her parade of lesbian lovers.

That will be your choice. You will come home if that time comes. And you’ll sleep better knowing you did.

[luvadavi]

What is it you don*t like about Duncan Hunter?

[Petronski]

He’s a lying liberal.

[JRochelle]

What utter rubbish.

To say we should vote for the guy who has the most money is stupid.

Money does not equal votes.

Ever hear of President Forbes?

Senator Coors?

Me either.

[Petronski]

His commitment to traditional family values...

...like $50 bargain basement abortion make him an affront to thinking conservatives.

[668 - Neighbor of the Beast]

On the Sunday talk show thread, they made it sound like Russert was savaging Romney. Or to some, Romney was defending himself brilliantly.

I’m watching the video now and my head is spinning, trying to follow Romney’s reasoning. Russert is letting him off easy in my opinion.

For example: the relative who had an abortion is now gone as the foundation of his support of abortion. Now, it was just theoretical support.

Then his belief in pro-life is, he describes it, a political position. That’s his exact term.

Killing surplus embryos is ok with him, no explanation why they don’t count as living and protected, and Russert doesn’t persist in questioning him.

That’s just the pro-life issue. Then there’s the NRA membership and the illegal alien issue.

I may have to vote for this man, which really depresses me. Smooth? He is slicker than Clinton, more nuanced than Kerry. I don’t like him and I don’t trust him, and that’s the nicest thing I can say about him.

How can smart, sensible people like Charen, Coulter, and Bork swallow what he’s serving up?

[Petronski]

Bork is anti-gun, so his affinity to Willard is obvious.

Coulter’s probably all smitten and goooshie.

[Beagle8U]

Bork is easy to explain. He’s as anti-gun as Willard is!

[Diogenesis]

Romney - The Democrat's RINO

"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)

[nathanbedford]

Or maybe it means you got more of it.

[Reaganesque]

It must have been good. All the right people hated it.

[Diogenesis]

Romney - Choice of Democrats everywhere

James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."

[Petronski]

You consider Willard’s lies “good?”

[greyfoxx39]

I may have to vote for this man, which really depresses me. Smooth? He is slicker than Clinton, more nuanced than Kerry. I don’t like him and I don’t trust him, and that’s the nicest thing I can say about him.

I won't vote for him. I will vote down-ticket, but he has no chance at all in NM, so I can easily leave that spot blank.

[tillacum]

Does anyone else think mitt is a bit of a B-Ser?

[JRochelle]

A bit?

Surely you jest!

[calcowgirl]

The first time I read your little blurb on Thompson, I liked it. The second time, too.

The third time, I found it repetitive; the fourth time obnoxiously redundant.

Now that I look at your recent posts, I see that you have posted the same thing
no fewer than 55 times, often on threads having nothing to do Fred.

I believe this qualifies as SPAM.

[khnyny]

[”lethality”
thefreedictionary.com
Word not found in the Dictionary and Encyclopedia.]

Do you just make stuff up as you go along? You can’t possibly be that stupid.

The word can be found at the following link.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lethality