Posted on 12/25/2007 2:34:26 PM PST by Brices Crossroads
Romney:
When Romney took office in 2003, under the law in Massachusetts, enacted by the Massachusetts Supreme Court in Moe v. Secretary of Admin.& Finance, 382 Mass. 629, 417 N.E.2d 387 (Mass. 1981), the taxpayers of Massachusetts were forced to subsidize ONLY abortions performed on Medicaid eligible women. In 2003, there were 4,859 publicly funded abortions in Massachusetts, according to the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. link
In 2003, there were 25,741 total abortions performed in Massachusetts. link
Post-RomneyCare, the state forces every Massachusetts taxpayer to fund every abortion performed on any Massachusetts resident for a very modest $50 copay. Thus, under Romney Care, the number of abortions that will be funded on the backs of the taxpaying citizens of Massachusetts will be at least 500% more than the number when he took office (approx. 25,000 versus 5,000).
Romney's answer to this is as predictable as it is disingenuous: The Courts made me do it. The Court in Moe did no such thing. The court did not require the legislature to subsidize health care. In finding that the state had to cover abortions for Medicaid eligible women in the same way it covered child bearing, the Court was explicit that: "... the legislature need not subsidize any of the costs associated with child bearing or with health care generally. Once it chooses to enter the Constitutionally protected area of choice, it must do so with genuine indifference." This is Massachusetts double speak which is translated: "If you do not want to have universal funding of abortion on demand, then do not pass a universal and mandatory health care program." Romney could have avoided this five fold increase in publicly funded abortions which was put across on his watch and with his enthusiastic support, by vetoing the whole plan. Instead, he chose to sacrifice the lives of unborn children (and to require the taxpayers of Massachusetts to pay for it) on the altar of compulsory, yes socialized, health care. All the bromides about an unpassable Constitutional Human Life Amendment cannot conceal the fact that, when he could have done something to prevent an increase in abortion, Romney not only did nothing. He actually cooperated with it. At the signing ceremony attended by Ted Kennedy, in April 2006 (after his supposed conversion to a prolife position), the mood was ebullient, according to the news reports:
"Mostly, however, the tone was congratulatory. 'This isn't 100 percent of what anyone in this room wanted,' Mr. Romney said. 'But the differences between us are small.' Mr. Kennedy said, 'You may well have fired the shot heard round the world on health care in America. I hope so.'" link
I guess there were not any unborn children in the room, because I daresay their differences with all the celebrants there would have been rather more than "small". Here's hoping that this "shot" Kennedy predicted is heard at least as far as Iowa, where Romney has more or less successfully reinvented himself as a prolife zealot.
Huckabee:
Apparently, according to the documents below, Mike Huckabee took $35,000 in honoraria from a major embryonic stem cell research firm, Novo Nordisk, in late 2006 and early 2007. Earlier this year, Mitt Romney got substantial flack for owning stock in the same firm, and he divested himself of it. See the article below, with links to the documents and websites:
"The Cooler has obtained documents that show Mike Huckabee received $378,000 in consulting fees during 2006, while he was still governor of Arkansas. Most noteworthy, $35,000 came from Novo Nordisk, one of the world's largest embryonic stem cell researchers. It seems that when money is at stake Huckabee may be able to look past his supposedly fervent opposition to this procedure."
There is no doubt that Romney's divergence from the prolife position in RomneyCare is far more serious from a policy standpoint and has graver consequences for the unborn. Huckabee, however, is guilty of real hubris in taking this cash from a company that traffics in human embryos for research, while railing against embryonic stem cell research and even showing pictures of children who were once frozen embryos to try to tug at the heartstrings of his supporters. link
So says you.
I say that Romney will be the Republican nomination, and you’ll have to make a choice: Mitt or Hillary.
Pointing out the man's failure to be what he presents is just good politics.
I say I am the tooth Fairy. My kid may actually buy that a few more years...
Romney has name-recognition?
Since the beginning of the year, he has polled the lowest in the name-recognition category except for Huckabee.
Thompson, Giuliani, and McCain have the highest name recognition, and it hasn’t done them a bit of good.
“Romney has name-recognition?”
Yes. In the select states he has saturated with ads, he does. The problem, which he is about to discover, is that this saturation bombing will win you polls but not elections. I promise not to say “I told you so” on January 4 when you get the first tutorial on this principle.
False dichotomy.
------------------------------------------------------------
Then you and Petronski have something in common: a complete inability to recognize reality. Don't worry though... Reality will set in for you guys on Jan. 3rd, 8th, 15th, and 19th.
Romney has absolutely no consistency whatsoever, what are we to believe ? Why do you believe him ?
“Since the beginning of the year, he has polled the lowest in the name-recognition”
Don’t forget...the highest core negatives as well. 47% say there is no chance they will vote for him, the same as Hillary.
If your wild-ass guess is true, the GOP is screwed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
And I promise not to make such a promise. Will I gloat? You bet!
--------------------------------------------------------
Because he has lived the life that the other candidates only pay lip-service to.
"A man not honorable in his marital relations is not usually honorable in any other."--Harry Truman
Romney's success in his personal life tells me all I need to know about his character and values.
His success in his professional life tells me what I need to know about his ability to lead.
Election 2008: Clinton vs. Giuliani & Romney One Point Apart: Clinton and Giuliani, Clinton and Romney Saturday, December 22, 2007
In a general election match-up, both Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney find themselves in a toss-up with Hillary Clinton. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone shows Giuliani with a statistically insignificant 45% to 44% advantage over Clinton. Romney enjoys the same margin, nominally leads Clinton 44% to 43%.
Both Republicans have a decided advantage with male voters. Clinton has the advantage with female voters (see crosstabs).
Clinton and Giuliani have been trading generally insignificant leads for months. In the last four polls, Clinton led twice, Giuliani led twice. Earlier in December, it was Clinton by three. Both candidates have been within four points of the 45% mark in nine consecutive surveys (see history of this match-up).
However, while Giuliani has been competitive with the Democratic frontrunner all year, the current poll represents the best performance yet for Romney.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_romney
Jimmy Carter has been happily, loyally married to Rosalyn for 61 years...since Truman actually WAS president.
___________________________________________________________
Great, so that covers the personal life litmus test. Now address the professional life test, and apply it to Carter...specifically, Carter's business acumen and accomplishments.
Carter didn’t inherit a gold-plated Rolodex. Ah, but Carter DID serve in the military.
No, Carter inherited a large peanut farm and managed to mutilate his finger while trying to run it.
___________________________________________________
Which only proves that military service isn't a legitimate test to predict the success of a President.
Carter’s more trustworthy than Willard.
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.