Posted on 01/21/2008 4:45:12 PM PST by stickman20089
Were you a net tax increaser?" "We built roads," it's a deflection. Look, I say this because the best we can do here, folks, is to try to measure the candidate's record and recent comments, and you have to judge whether what they're saying today is expedient or serious. Let's take abortion, for example, shall we? Romney was pro-abortion. He now says he was wrong. Says he was for it when he ran for governor. But he talks about the moment he changed his mind and why he changed his mind. He doesn't claim to have been "misunderstood." He doesn't claim to say that he was pro-life. He doesn't say, "Well, I never was pro-choice. I have always been pro-life." He doesn't try to obfuscate or cloud his record. He comes out and apologizes. You have to judge whether that's a real conversion. It's up to you as a voter, but it's far easier to make that judgment when he says, "I made a mistake. I was wrong. Here's why and how and when I changed my mind," and when he doesn't say, "Look, you're misunderstanding me." He's not saying that.
The other candidates are saying (McCain impression), "You misunderstood. It wasn't amnesty. It's different with amnesty! Quit lying about it." Or: What about the fact you're a net tax increaser? "We built roads. We built schools." You try to make the best judgment you can. Here's the thing: All of us who are steadfastly trying to maintain a conservative, genuine conservative identity of the Republican Party, we've been lectured to forget about Ronald Reagan, and we have been lectured to forget about conservatism. We're told it's time to rewrite things, to adopt some new, revolutionary, adaptive thinking that takes those principles and applies them to the issues of today. Now all of what we're told -- lectured to forget about Reagan, forget about conservatism, understand it's a new day and there's a new role for government, new issues, all of this -- is intended to ease the way for a McCain or a Huckabee. Romney, Rudy, Thompson supporters don't talk this way for the most part. Romney, Rudy, and Thompson people are not telling us to shut up.
You have no idea...
I think you are mistaken. Stickman isn’t the one doing the analyzing— that is a transcript from Rush Limbaugh. So it’s Rush Limbaugh doing the analyzing.
Rush has been clearly stating which candidates are threats to conservatism.
Welcome!
I had to miss Rush today. Thanks for posting.
ttt
What the heck is that all about? It was an excellent post. Maybe you just didn't bother to notice that there's a link and click on it to read the cited material -- an all-too-common phenomenon here in FRland.
More evidence that Rush is a closet Rudy lover.
Rush could have done a lot of good for Fred's candidacy by endorsing him, but Rush's infatuation with Rudy got in the way.
That pretty well describes you, the statement's list came from Rush today.
So Rush works for Clear Channel which is being purchased by Bain Capital, eh? So Romney hasn't said in the past year, "I've always been pro-life," eh? Hmm...where did this quote emerge from, then? Feb. 8, 2007: "I am firmly pro-life…I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
(Maybe Rush should rehire a new research staff since he looks bad being 180 off-base)
More from Rush: He doesn't try to obfuscate or cloud his record. He comes out and apologizes. You have to judge whether that's a real conversion. It's up to you as a voter, but it's far easier to make that judgment when he says, "I made a mistake. I was wrong. Here's why and how and when I changed my mind," and when he doesn't say, "Look, you're misunderstanding me." He's not saying that.
Well, who was that masked Romney man on Fox last August in the Chris Wallace interview, then?
Romney (Aug. 12, 2007) on Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
Rush looks absolutely terrible having bought into the Romney propaganda machine. But that's what happen's when conservatives bite down on the hook...the sinker of the corrupt compromising candidate corrupts its supporters as well.
So whats your point? Are you saying RUsh cant be a conservative if he likes a candidate who:
1. Appeals to Fiscons
2. Appeals to National Security Cons
3. Tells Social Cons that although he doesnt agree with them personally, that he will nominate judges that will be strict constructionists.
He is more of a conservative than Huckafraud!
Disclosure: Thompson, Romney, and Rudy are my top choices (in that order).
But, Rush gets paid a lot of money for expressing his opinions. I just think he should have the guts to come out of the closet and disclose he's a Rudy lover if that's what he is.
~”Rush looks absolutely terrible having bought into the Romney propaganda machine.”~
Ummm.... Maybe you’re wrong, and he’s right? Along with dozens or hundreds of other influential, intelligent, rock-steady conservatives?
Occam’s Razor?
We do the best we can, folks.
I think of the matters facing us: Iraq and all the soldiers overseas, Islamic militants, the steady invasion over our southern border, government growing at an accelerating pace in its greed and intrusiveness. And I think we need to do the best we can.
To my mind, McCain is the enemy as much as any Democrat. He needs to be voted against in the same way. No need, I think, to elaborate on this forum. Huckabee is truly a huckster, not even slightly more honest than Bill Clinton, and just as manipulative. These are the ones Rush categorically disqualifies, and I agree.
Then he mentions Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson. Romney is just a phony salesman (not to besmirch decent salesmen). Considering that Thompson is nearly out of this anyway and is fundamentally a 'moderate' in my mind, I would still vote for Hunter over him, despite Hunter's drop-out. Giuliani is inarguably a liberal on 'social' issues very important to me, mainly abortion.
I'm considering Giuliani, though. Rather than lying, he tends to emphasize those aspects of his candidacy that he thinks will appeal to Republicans, and downplay (rather than deny) his liberal side. I don't think he is a thoroughly honest man, and I'm sure good FReepers could cite examples of that, but I still see him more as someone with whom I disagree rather than as an enemy or conman. The things that I do like about him are genuine and demonstrated: cutting taxes and spending, fighting crime. I recall him taking a stand against obscenity in New York City's publicly-funded art. And though I don't see being the Mayor of New York as so qualifying as some would, I do think his heart is 100% in it to fight Islamic militants. With all the lives and strategic purposes that will be on the line over the next four years, that counts for a lot. Don't misunderstand me FRiends; there just aren't any good choices left.
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.