| Ah, Fred is old and tired. (They said that same thing constantly about Ronald Reagan). You are today's winner of the Flip Romney Talking Points Parrot Award for Mindless Mumboobery.  U.S. Army Retired |
Posted on 01/04/2008 2:22:35 PM PST by big'ol_freeper
This is Part 1 of my Election '08 analysis of presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Part 2 is forthcoming.
With last night's Iowa caucuses now in the books, former governor and Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is feeling good (but not great) about his second-place finish to Mike Huckabee in this crucial inaugural state caucus for the Republican nomination for president.
His other opponents did much worse than he did, but Romney had a distant second place finish to Huckabee, even after so much time and money spent in Iowa over the last year. Questions still remain about Romney's major beliefs and principles, however, and I'm not talking about his Mormon religion. On everything from guns and the NRA, abortion rights and emergency contraceptives to gay rights and pardons, this man has flip-flopped so much in recent years that he makes John Kerry look like the model of consistency.
I defy anyone to name another presidential candidate in recent times from any political party who has reversed or backtracked on issue after issue as much as he has and won the White House. And in an election season where voters are looking for a leader they can trust, Mitt Romney's trustworthiness is an issue in and of itself and the fact that Iowa voters preferred the significantly less well known and less wealthy Huckabee should tell you something about how voters feel about him and the Republican field in general. They may be catching on to Romney's record, but so too should the rest of the country.
It is true that anyone with a long career in politics is bound to change his or her mind on some issues over time. However, a majority of the 60-year-old Romney's adult life has been centered on professions or (Mormon) missions outside of politics, much as they may have initially informed his political views. And during his considerably shorter time in the political realm, his views on social and other current issues have evolved at such an alarming rate that you can't blame voters for being skeptical of them and seeking out other candidates.
By now, most political junkies or serious followers of the campaign have either seen on YouTube or heard about the clips showing Romney's formerly pro-abortion, Roe v. Wade and gay rights stances during his failed run for Senator Ted Kennedy's seat in 1994 and successful run for governor in 2002. In the latter year, he revealed that his mother Lenore was pro-choice during her attempt at a Senate seat back in 1970, and that he has long been dedicated to the pro-choice cause himself. He even associated himself with Planned Parenthood in 1994.
As governor though, he began his transformation on pro-choice rights by flip-flopping on legislation that made the "morning after" pill available to Massachusetts citizens. First, in mid-2005 he opposed its use for rape victims after pledging to increase its access, according to the Washington Post. Late in 2005, he signed a bill increasing its access to MA citizens and made all state hospitals comply with the law, and also made the pill available to rape victims, all to the dismay of pro-lifers in the state. Nowadays though, he considers himself a mostly pro-life conservative and supports repealing Roe.
Regarding gay rights, he has flip-flopped on civil unions in recent years and after having participated in the Boston Gay Pride Parade in 2002 and having run "to the left of Ted Kennedy" on gay rights in 1994, he now emphatically calls homosexuality destructive to the idea of the American family and strongly opposes gay marriage. He may be going too far in denunciating the gay life style but his opposition to gay marriage is a position I share as is his belief that MA voters should get a chance to approve or disapprove of its legality. Even with a new governor in town (Democrat Deval Patrick), we're still waiting for that chance.
Mitt Romney also changed his attitude toward gun rights over time. In the 1990s, he supported the Brady Handgun Violence Protect Act of 1993, but now opposes gun control, with the exception of a ban on assault weapons. And as Tim Russert pointed out on December 16, 2007 in his one-on-one interview on "Meet The Press, Romney used to say he doesn't "line up" with the NRA, but he's now a lifetime member! And, he recently claimed he was a lifelong hunter of varmints and rodents. This flip-flop on gun rights would be really funny if it wasn't so politically opportunistic like many of his other reversals.
On Romney's Meet The Press appearance, Russert cornered him on a host of issues, starting with his December 6, 2007 'Faith In America' speech in which he stated that "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom." However, when Russert asked him if an athiest can be a moral person and "participate in freedom," Romney flipped and said "Oh, of course."
He tried to explain to Russert that as a nation faith mattered but individually it did not and that there would be no litmus test in presidential appointments. On its face, that's commendable but late in that speech, he said: "Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me." That would be Romney saying it does matter if individuals have faith in their life, because if they don't, they are not his "friend" or "ally." What this episode represents is Romney once again talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Looking back, as a Massachusetts citizen, I thought Mitt Romney did a fairly good job of running the state and cleaning up the fiscal mess that his fellow Republican predecessor Jane Swift left behind. However, he had a poor finish to his governorship, as his spending cuts - which among other things hurt the elderly and badly needed nursing programs - to balance the budget late in his term weren't very popular around here. He also raised the gas tax and raised the most fees of any state in the country. By the end of his one and only term last January, Romney's approval rating was only 43%. And with his change of heart on issues he campaigned on as governor and mocking of MA on the presidential campaign trail, you can't blame many of my fellow state citizens for claiming Mitt Romney turned his back on his constituents.
To be continued…
| Ah, Fred is old and tired. (They said that same thing constantly about Ronald Reagan). You are today's winner of the Flip Romney Talking Points Parrot Award for Mindless Mumboobery. U.S. Army Retired |
Republicans will win with McCain and lose with Romney. Bottom line.
Of course Fred Thompson is the best choice of all.
People like me? Maybe you didn’t read my post. I thought I pointed out the misinformation he was attempting to peddle. If he was lying about the immigration question, the facts of which I happen to know, then why should I believe the other stuff? I think his fake sincerity is awful and scary. Why not just nominate Elmer Gantry?
People like me? Maybe you didn’t read my post. I thought I pointed out the misinformation he was attempting to peddle. If he was lying about the immigration question, the facts of which I happen to know, then why should I believe the other stuff? I think his fake sincerity is awful and scary. Why not just nominate Elmer Gantry?
“...stop the Pat Buchanan/Pat Robertson coalition.”
FRiend, we’re on the same side, I cannot stand the sanctimonious and liberal Hu-hu-hu-huck-a-bee, but in my mind, he has a whole different set of flaws than the two that you site. I’d liken it more to a Jimmy Carter/Rick Warren coalition.
People like me? Maybe you didn’t read my post. I thought I pointed out the misinformation he was attempting to peddle. If he was lying about the immigration question, the facts of which I happen to know, then why should I believe the other stuff? I think his fake sincerity is awful and scary. Why not just nominate Elmer Gantry?
People like me? Maybe you didn’t read my post. I thought I pointed out the misinformation he was attempting to peddle. If he was lying about the immigration question, the facts of which I happen to know, then why should I believe the other stuff? I think his fake sincerity is awful and scary. Why not just go ahead and nominate Elmer Gantry?
First, Iowa has revealed that the Clintons only stole FBI files on the first half of the alphabet.
Obama and Romney are in the clear for now.
Second, the problem is the Romney created new 'skeletons' during the campaign.
Push polls. Fake badges. Fake troopers. Hippocracy. False charges.
MLK delusions. NRA delusions. False claims of support.
Romney has been unable be skeleton-free during the campaign itself.
"Behind the empty gestures and deceptive rhetoric, Romney was not pro-life
or a defender of marriage by any stretch of the imagination.
He was a disaster," said O'Gorman, of the board for Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
He said Romney "deceptively" claims to have been awarded
a pro-life award from the group.
"The award Romney arranged for himself with the local Pioneer Valley Chapter
was the Mullins Award for Political Leadership, not a pro-life award
and not approved by MCFL's state board of directors," he said.
"We're blowing the whistle to warn voters…"
[Family leaders call Romney 'disaster' - Letter criticizes 'deceptive rhetoric' around candidate]
Republicans have to win in November first. That’s the first and primary hurdle. Not all candidates can achieve that. There are only two that have a shot: Thompson and McCain. Period.
Now regarding what they do in office, there are other issues of equal importance. Iraq is one of them. Both McCain and Thompson will ensure victory. All the Democrats have promised retreat. This is huge, and makes a Republican victory in November absolutely essential.
McCain says he learned from his mistakes on immigration and now favors border enforcement first. That’s a positive development. Hillary wouldn’t be any better on the border, in fact, she would be worse. Obama would be the worst of all, since he favors chain migration over merit based immigration, even.
Remember, the general election is going to be a Republican vs. a Democrat, not two Republicans. McCain is still better than any of the Democrats on every single issue, and will cut spending, veto pork, keep America safe, and win in Iraq. I will take that over a Democrat victory any day.
In a field of flawed candidates, I still prefer Mitt over the field. I also like Thompson, but I am tired of people making excuses for a candidate with seemingly little energy for the job. I sense that he would like to be president if cast in the role. He just won’t do the heavy lifting. Blaming Fox News or National Review for not lighting a fire for Fred is a cop out.
On the subject of National Review and its endorsement, it amazes me how easily people around here dismiss that endorsement. But for National Review, we might have Justice Harriet Myewrs.
I think you make a mountain out of a mole hill over the exchange with Russert. You won’t find any candidate who would take a different position on the question of whether athiests can be moral or have a role in freedom. The important thing was that Romney emphasized that we are and must remain a religious nation. He strikes the right tone in my opinion. Reagan would have given the same answer.
My bottom line opinion is that supporters of other candidates are working overtime to trash Mitt because he is a threat to their preferred choice. I think the bigger picture is that we will all need to rally behind the nominee, whoever he is, so the histrionics at this stage are far from helpful.
With all due respect, you said most of what Huckabee was saying sounded “pretty OK” up until immigration. What you fail to understand is everything he was peddling that you thought was OK was also misinformation. Even though he didn’t fool you on immigration, he still apparently fooled you on everything else, which puts him at about a 90% BS success rate, which is not too bad. Probably even better than Bill Clinton.
Since when was Pat Buchanan for Huckabee?
Since when was Pat Buchanan for Huckabee?
In reference to Romney, I’m always reminded of the Tancredo quote:
“Conversions are supposed to be made on the road to Damascus, not on the road to Des Moines,”
You are wrong. Period. I think many of our guys can beat the dems. The only sure loser is Huckabee. The MSM loves him now, but if he is the nominee they will ruthlessly paint him as a religious nut and lightweight. And McCain and Thompson have big problems competing without money or campaign organization. But it’s not just about winnning. It’s about choosing the most conservative candidate (not McCain) who is capable of winning (not Fred). It’s Mitt.
It’s not about if Pat Buchanan is for Huckabee or not, though I imagine he is.
It’s that Mike Huckabee is Pat Buchanan with a happy face.
Huckabee subscribes to Pat Buchanan’s economic populism, trade protectionism, global isolationism, and religious bigotry, though it’s Mormons instead of Jews for Huckabee. The only real difference is Buchanan is anti-immigrant and Huckabee is pro-amnesty.
Fred has the stamina also...
Personally, I don’t see Romney as the biggest loser in Iowa. That title is shared by the two BIG political machines. Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party handpicked contenders, Clinton and Giuliani, were snubbed by a large majority of voters in both parties.
Pffft. Mitt has proven that no amount of money can buy him an election.
It’s over. What good is a candidate with lots of money if his money is no good?
That’s the only thing anyone liked Mitt for.
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.