Romney has too many of these:
Won't get the nomination
Posted on 12/30/2007 5:50:44 PM PST by County Agent Hank Kimball
I have a very simple question, and I'd really like your take on it. I don't mean this as antagonistic, but I'd really like to hear your answer.
Somewhere between 70 and 80 percent of the people here on Free Republic consistently express their clear preference in poll after poll for Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter over Huckabee or Romney.
My question is: Why?
Why do you think, despite Romneys many millions spent and the claims of both Romney and Huckabee to be genuine conservatives, that Freepers haven't bought it? It is quite clear that most here are firm in their belief that neither Romney or Huckabee is an acceptable conservative. At least at this point of the game.
Why do we think this - in your opinion?
And then, why are we wrong?
Hank
Will you be glad when the madness is over?
All three of those are wrong.
Pro-choice: Romney vetoed a bill giving over-the-counter access to the morning after pill, and he vetoed a bill allowing embryo farming. There's not a single action he took as governor that increased access to abortion.
Sanctuary cities: as a governor, Romney had no control over sanctuary city policies. He was not a mayor. What little he could do to fight illegal immigration he did: he prevented illegals from getting drivers lisences, he stopped them from getting in-state tuition at state colleges, and he authorized the state police to help ICE enforce immigration law.
Socialized medicine: his healthcare plan is the furthest thing from socialized medicine. The crux of the plan is loosen insurance regulation so as to allow more people to afford PRIVATE health insurance. Last time I checked, socialized medicine is about having the GOVERNMENT run the healthcare system. Romney's plan does nothing of the sort.
Yes, his plan mandates that people either buy insurance or self-insure. You may not like that, but in a society where hosiptals are not allowed to turn away uninsured patients, an insurance mandate strikes me as very reasonable.
Let me know when you don’t want to waste my time.
Romney has too many of these:
Won't get the nomination
“You have to admit that only McCain among the frontrunners has a record of poking conservatives in the eye with a stick stronger than Romney. Whether it’s dissing Reagan, dissing the NRA, supporting homosexual marriage, or attending Planned Parenthood events, he’s got a pretty good record of being against things he now claims to support and visa versa.”
The man has said he’s changed. You don’t believe he has. That’s what this is about, right?
FWIW, my rankings right now are:
Fred
Hunter
Guiliani
Romney
McCain
Huckabee
Paul
Hank
“You left out immigration man!!”
Read it again. I tied immigration to national defense. They can be subdivided, but I think most see the inflow of illegals as a danger to the country’s security - hence national defense.
If he wasn’t pro choice why did he have to switch. He made comments in support of all these things. While I understand he said these things to get elected in Mass. he did never the less give lip service to all of them. Now you say I suppose that he has changed, maybe so. I’m just saying that when he had the opportunity to advance conservative principles as a governor he did not. While he has the right to change his mind at the moment you can’t advance him as gods gift to conservatives. He has come to the party late with no gift for the hostess.
True but I think it goes further up the list.
-----
Honestly? It's more like he said he's changed, and I'm not sure whether to believe him or not.
The good news, should he get the nomination is this. If he still runs as a proudly pro-life, pro-gun, anti gay-marriage, anti-amnesty guy after getting the nomination, then he's probably sincere. If he starts tacking back to the center, then we'll all know he's the phoney some have said he is.
I want to support the GOP nominee, and likely will. The only question is with what degree of enthusiasm.
Hank
Oh! You’re dismissed.
(Mitt) “I’ve never seen that he has been arrested, or broke a law”
It’s looks like he has had a few brushes with the law, including multiple arrests.
How do you feel about the job GWB has done?
Romney supports all those things.
Very strong Second Amendment supporter.
Okay, I'll grant you, on this issue he's slightly to the right of Romney. But Romney is no futher to the left on guns than is president Bush.
Helped get Roberts and Alito through the Senate.
Okay, that's a feather in his cap, though I don't see how it's such a big one. In my book, it pales in comparison to Romney's fight to keep spending down in the most liberal state in the country. It also pales in comparison to his fight against gay marraige.
Consistent record of supporting federalism - leave to the states what is properly in their domain, with the Feds only doing what it in theirs.
No different than Romney.
You have to admit that only McCain among the frontrunners has a record of poking conservatives in the eye with a stick stronger than Romney.
I disagree.
Whether it's dissing Reagan,
Romney never "dissed" Reagan.
dissing the NRA,
Occaisionally disagreeing with the NRA does not constitute "dissing."
supporting homosexual marriage,
Okay, now you've crossed the line. That's an outright lie. Romney never supported homosexual marraige. In fact, he's done more to fight it in his 4 years as governor than Thompson's done in his entire political career.
or attending Planned Parenthood events,
Thompson was pro-choice at one point as well.
he's got a pretty good record of being against things he now claims to support and visa versa.
No, it's just one thing: abortion, which, BTW, Thompson has also changed on. Don't kid yourself.
Other than that, he's been a down-the-line consistent conservative.
Well, let's see. He was once pro-choice. He also supported amnesty for illegals as recently as this year. Sorry, but that doesn't qualify as "down-the-line consistent conservative" in my book.
“How about we make this interesting. If Thompson gets the nomination, I’ll send you a $200 gift certificate to the Palm. If Romney gets it, you send me one. Deal?”
As much as I like Fred, I don’t have high hopes that he is going to get the nomination. I seriously hope I am wrong, but sadly, I don’t think I am.
I do think that Romney has a better chance of getting the nomination than the rest of them. That’s unfortunate, because in my opinion, he’ll be no better than Slick Willie was if he becomes president. He’s a good looking guy who will no doubt get a good chunk of the women’s vote. He’s slick, so he’ll be able to fool a lot of republicans who think he’s a conservative (including liberal professors who teach at universities) ;^)
I’m not disagreeing that Romney won’t get nominated, I’m just saying that if you study his record as governor of MA he clearly doesn’t have a consistent record as a conservative. How you fail to see that is beyond me. Like I said, maybe the liberals in Seattle have affected your thinking. Either that or you’re drinking too many soy lattes at Starbucks.
If we could bet on who of the two is most conservative between Fred and Mitt, well that would be a bet worth having. Maybe we could take a survey here on FR and whoever gets the most votes wins. Oh wait a minute, Fred already won that poll. ;^)
By the way, I would prefer a gift certificate to Anthony’s Seafood Restaurant on Lake Washington in Kirkland. If that’s too steep for you I’ll settle for Ivar’s.
Keep clam!
Well, you were talking about how he governed, not about what he said.
So yeah, until 2005, he was pro-choice in word, but as governor, his deeds were pro-life. That's why Massachusetts Citizens for Life endorsed him.
I’m just saying that when he had the opportunity to advance conservative principles as a governor he did not.
Is keeping government spending down is not a conservative principle? Is stopping tax increases? Is fighting gay marriage?
FYI, Romney did all of those things.
I was a resident of Massachusetts during his entire term as governor, and I was active in the local pro-life movement. Make no mistake: Massachusetts pro-life leaders considered him (and still consider him) a staunch ally. That's got to count for something.
And you're alright with this. When the wind shifts what's he going to be. Oh! I guess he'll be both. If he is nominated I'll probably vote for him ,but not with much enthusiasm. Seems to pander to me.
Nice rant.
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.