Posted on 01/06/2008 6:36:02 AM PST by big'ol_freeper
While Mitt Romney's change from moderate Republican to full-blown conservative left a sour taste in the mouth of Massachusetts citizens, only time will tell if the Republican base in early primary states will ultimately accept this "new" right-wing Romney as one of their own. If this recent Rasmussen survey means anything, the upside for Romney going forward is not good, as he is tied with Hillary Clinton at 47% for having the highest level of "core opposition" among voters, meaning they won't vote for him no matter how bad the other choices are.
Perhaps some of those absolutely negative feelings towards him contributed to his somewhat disappointing "Silver Medal" finish in Iowa Thursday night. After leading Iowa for much of the primary season, voters only gave him 25% of their votes, as opposed to the 34% they gave to the other former governor in the race, Hope, Arkansas's Mike Huckabee. New Hampshire though, whose primary is next week, has Romney and John McCain in a dead heat atop the latest polls, so maybe those potential voters are loyal to Romney or fail to understand how unprincipled and untrustworthy a candidate he really is.
For example, on Meet The Press a couple of weeks ago, one minute Romney said the 12 million illegals in this country should not have to go home and should be able to sign up for citizenship. The next minute, he said a "great majority" of them should go home. Furthermore, the Boston Globe pointed out that in 2005, he said McCain, President Bush and other proponents of immigration reform bills didn't have his full endorsement but were "reasonable proposals" that were "quite different from amnesty." By 2007, as the paper pointed out, he called the McCain-Kennedy bill "amnesty" and rejected it outright.
Romney has also taken both sides of the embryonic stem cell debate and become a hypocrite on pardons. The candidate brags that he didn't pardon one criminal as governor out of respect for jury verdicts, not even for a decorated Iraqi veteran who was charged with shooting (but not really injuring) a kid with a BB gun in his youth.
As bad as that is, he now thinks former White House aide "Scooter" Libby deserves a full pardon by President Bush based on a false belief that prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald abused his power and nailed the wrong guy during his investigation of who was criminally responsible for leaking the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to the media in 2003. Libby was convicted early in 2007 on 4 of 5 counts for obstructing justice, committing perjury and providing false statements to federal officials. Bush however, thought the prison sentence was too harsh a punishment so he used his executive power to commute (or kill) it, but did not fully pardon him. Gotta love Romney's priorities: pardon the White House war hawk but not an actual veteran of the Iraq war.
Mitt can relate to so-called "chickenhawks" though, as he told the New York Times recently that back when he was a Mormon missionary in the late 1960s, he accomplished little in converting the French to his cause and "longed" for a chance to join his comrades in Vietnam. When he returned from France though, while his fellow missionaries enlisted in the armed forces, he got a student deferment so he could go to college instead.
As far as foreign policy matters are concerned, Romney supports the Iraq War like many Republicans. However, his views on the War on Terror are almost as misguided and scary as Huckabee's, whose campaign has said that his "former pastor" background helps him understand our Islamic extremist enemies and that the War On Terror is a "theological" war. [Echoes of President' Bush's gaffe that we're on a "crusade" against terrorists, doesn't it?] For instance, Romney said early in a Fox News-sponsored GOP debate in May of last year that he's glad our enemies are locked up in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and don't have access to lawyers, and that the facility needs to be doubled, as opposed to closed, which everyone from Colin Powell and the British to the Bush administration and Democrats want.
Of course, what Romney fails to understand is that the problem with Gitmo isn't size, it’s about putting the prisoners on trial and doing so with rights and legal procedures that are older than this country, including the writ of habeus corpus, which is not a right in and of itself but a safeguard against peremptory state behavior.
He also apparently doesn't understand that closing Gitmo is a laudable goal, but that returning uncharged prisoners to their home countries is the main stumbling block, as well as the legal and political arguments over whether to try the remaining prisoners in military tribunals or federal courts. The fear is that letting these prisoners go back to their home countries (like Russia and China) could subject them to torture and harassment by local authorities, or that they may come back to fight the U.S. and their allies some day. But fear not Romney fans, he'll probably seek "counsel" from his trusty advisers to handle this and other issues like Iran, I'm sure.
Let's not forget his embarrassing argument with former tortured Vietnam POW John McCain over "waterboarding" at the Republican CNN/YouTube debate. He refused to admit that "waterboarding" is torture, said he needed to consult with advisers - even McCain, who condemned it! - about the procedure, and wouldn't tell the public anyway because it would help our enemies. This procedure, which the CIA is now in trouble for allegedly using on a few al Qaeda prisoners, has been condemned by Democrats and Republicans alike since at least World War II, when it "convicted several Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American and Allied POWs."
The U.S. military has banned waterboarding as well, and no politician, including Romney should be seen waffling or seeming willing to approve illegal interrogation procedures while our soldiers are still trying to fight the Iraq War and War on Terror, within the rule of law. Romney also does not fully understand the ethnic nature and different objectives of the enemies the U.S. and allies like Israel face every day. No, he wrongly believes that "radical jihadists" have "come together as Shi'a and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda" to bring down Western and moderate Islamic nations. If only it were that simple, Mitt.
In all, if you're a Republican voter looking for someone who is an authentic leader who is strong on national security and can appeal to the religious right without sounding like a zealot (like Huckabee) and win the general election against the Democratic nominee, John McCain, not Mitt Romney, is your man. No, he's not the ideal conservative Republican candidate, but as his recent rise in the polls suggests, he's the best you're going to get this election cycle. Besides, in the current political climate, there is no electable Republican with a solid, non-fraudulent platform of supporting low taxes, being tough on immigration and crime, has solid conservative values, is pro-life, pro-gun rights, pro-free trade and strong on national security.
The old Mitt Romney was unelectable in a Republican primary. By voting for the new Mitt Romney though, you're taking the chance that his numerous flaws will be exposed in a general election or that he'll become a fraud again and turn his back on you the same way he turned his back on Massachusetts. Either way, it's not a chance worth taking.
Issues during the election depending on who the GOP nominates:
Huckabee - Abortion only
McCain - National defense only
Romney - National defense, immigration, and taxes
Thompson - National defense, immigration, and taxes.
What do you want to argue with the Democrats over?
ping
That’s Mitt’s idea of leadership.
This is why he needed a hand holding committee, which he built, to pick county judges to nominate. He didn’t know what he wanted in a judge.( One of the reasons would of been to acquire payback chips or as arm twisting in other Massachusetts venues, but since Mitt didn’t care, had gotten his ticket punched and wasn’t sticking around anyways, why the trouble? )
In a way, though you can trust Mitt. Just like in the old fable where the frog trusted the scorpion when he gave him ride over the river.
Got battered RINO voter syndrome? Can't escape? Vote Mitt, he won't disappoint.
Sixty seven percent of caucus goers in Wyoming, the second reddest state in the country, seem to have concluded he can be trusted. Twenty-five percent of Iowa caucus goers agree plus Robert Bork, the National Review, William F. Buckley, James Bopp, Fay Buchanan, the head of the American Conservative Union, most of Conservative talk radio and so on and so on. And yet, somehow, according to many here on FR, all of these people are sell outs, senile, demented or idiots.
Shouldn’t this have been posted on DU ?
They’re not looking for a leader on UToob.
More anti-Mitt garbage.
So - if Mitt gets the nod, which Dem will you be voting for?
Or on JohnMcCain.com, or some such.
That being said however, this is the same man that helped forge that nightmare Feingold/McCain bill, and tho my old mind won’t bring together the times he voted with the libs, I do remember they are numerous. And if you think he’s going to be tough and persistent in dealing with the illegal mess we have on our hands...well, I think you’ll be disappointed...his answer to that last eve. in the ABC debate was “all around the bush” and what was left was still amnesty for millions of illegals...He doesn’t want to call it that, but “put lipstick on a pig and it’s still pig”.
By the way, I am no Romney supporter...but while the MSM is busy touting John McCain, and holding Romney's feet to the fire, as Chris Wallace is doing at this moment, asking very hostile questions about how much Romney's willing to spend on his campaign, how much he’s disliked and not trusted by Ed Rollins and others,...a real hatchet job that is hard to imagine would EVER be done to McCain, well, I feel led to at least point out a few of the flaws the press and others could go after him on, if they had any desire to do so...
The funny thing is this false argument seems to be the ONLY one his opponents have on him. WHY? Because Mitt’s actual record in Massachusetts is a conservative one and he is right on all the issues. They have to rely on juvenile one-liners about statements he made ages ago rather than evaluating his actual record. I think smart and savvy voters can see through that.
What do you want to argue with the Democrats over?
_______________
I would add two more factors we gain with Romney and not the others:
1)Actual real world experience
2)Beltway Outsider
Huck has flipped on everything except abortion and gays while disavowing his entire liberal record in Arkansas while trying to pretend to be conservative.
McCain's flip flop list is longer than anyone else's:
McCain flipped on the Bush tax cuts.
Most conservatives believe the biggest domestic success of George Bush's first term were his tax cuts. John McCain voted against them, more than once, before finally flip-flopping and voting for them this year.
McCain flipped on gay marriage.
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
McCain flipped on ethanol.
McCain was anti-ethanol when he was skipping Iowa in 1999. In 2006 he was pro-ethanol while campaigning in Iowa . Now he's pretty anti-ethanol again that he's decided to bypass Iowa. (THIS ONE IS A TRUE FLIP FLOP . . . Been on both sides of the issue multiple times)
McCain flipped on Roe.
In NH in 1999 McCain told reporters that "in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade." He explained that overturning Roe would force "women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." In 2006, campaigning for the GOP nomination as a conservative, McCain said the opposite.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion. Then I want to turn to Iraq. You're for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So is President Bush, yet that hasn't advanced in the six years he's been in office. What are you going to do to advance a constitutional amendment that President Bush hasn't done?
MCCAIN: I don't think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it's very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade...."
McCain flipped on climate change:
Kyoto By Any Other Name Would Still Smell As Rotten: John McCain proposed a radical bill, the McCain-Lieberman Stewardship Act, that is not all that different from the Kyoto Protocol. McCain's bill would do cataclysmic damage to our economy. In the name of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by an insignificant percentage, that not even the biggest proponents of Kyoto believe would have a significant impact on the weather, here's the damage John McCain would be willing to do to our economy (from an article by Marlo Lewis in National Review).
McCain flipped on stem cells.
Initially supporting the President's restriction as to federal funding, McCain then asked for an expansion to include wider research saying, "I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding." Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
McCain signed a letter from 58 Senators to the President
" Dear Mr. President:
We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research.
McCain flipped on faith
The Associated Press broke a story about McCain’s statement in Sept 2007 saying that he is in fact a Baptist, despite his past comments that he is an Episcopalian. The news hook is that McCain made these comments while he was in South Carolina, which happens to have a lot of Baptist voters. In a June 2007 interview with McClatchy Newspapers, the senator said his wife and two of their children have been baptized in North Phoenix Baptist Church, but he had not. “I didn’t find it necessary to do so for my spiritual needs,” he said. He told McClatchy he found the Baptist church more fulfilling than the Episcopalian church, but still referred to himself as an Episcopalian. Uh huh.
McCain flipped on guns
Senator McCain supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 100 percent in 2006.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the Gun Owners of America 0 percent in 2005.(MY THAT WAS A BIG CHANGE)
Based on lifetime voting records on gun issues and the results of a questionnaire sent to all Congressional candidates in 2004, the National Rifle Association assigned Senator McCain a grade of C+ (with grades ranging from a high of A+ to a low of F).
McCain flipped on the virtues of Evangelical Leadership
McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance" in 2002, but has since "reconciled" and has cozied up quite a bit.
McCain flipped on the Law of Sea Convention
Long-time vocal supporter of the Law, now (just this last month) he's against it.
YEP — BUSTED — BIG TIME!
I think another question is why Mitt polls so badly in his own state. Is it not strange that other GOP candidates poll better against Hillary and Obama than he does?
Look at these numbers:
Hillary 60
Romney 34
Hillary 53
McCain 43
Obama 55
Romney 36
Obama 47
McCain 45
I just can’t imagine what any Conservative is thinking if they are backing this man...he is no Conservative, except when it’s to his advantage to be one....exception being his stand on the war, I’ll give him that, but that’s it. After a lot of his votes on bills I’ve wondered out loud to the TV, why the heck are you listed Republican..(of course, unfortunately that can be asked of more than a few in Congress these days)..
Thanks again for your really informative post. I hope to heck anyone who is supporting McCain reads it,and gets their brain in gear.
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.