Posted on 01/22/2008 3:22:24 PM PST by Checkers
Dear fellow Fredheads,
It's time to support Mitt Romney. Can Mitt win in a general election? I don't know. Certainly he has always had a better chance than Fred. And if the opposition is Hillary Clinton, then maybe.
McCain can beat Hillary. But McCain is, well, McCain.
To be honest, I'm not as down on McCain as most of my fellow Jawas and you, the readers. But that's just because I've been a one-issue guy since right around, oh, let me see, I think the date was 9/11/2001.
But still, McCain doesn't get that the border is tied in with our national security.
Mitt does. And he seems to get the war on political Islam.
Sure, Rudy also seems to get both, but it's probably too little too late for him.
I'm hearing some oddball theory that a lot of Fredheads are natural Huckabee supporters. That's insane. Like, certifiably insane.
It's built on the presumption that the evangelical supporters of Thompson are in the same boat as the evangelical supporters of Huckabee. I got news for Tom Edsell: they aint the same animal. Sure, they may have the same funny accent, and so I'm guessing that to an outsider like Edsell the presumption is that they must be the same species. But they're not.
(Excerpt) Read more at mypetjawa.mu.nu ...
A gay newspaper, a planned parenthood protest, a flyer indicating tolerance for gay people, and an excellent FAQ detailing his conservative positions.
So Romney is the candidate hated by Planned Parenthood, who is strong on the issues but not perceived as bigotted against gays.
That’s a good combination. I’m guessing Rudy, McCain, and Huckabee aren’t any better for anti-gay bigots — Huckabee might have looked that way, but he does seem to tolerate gays in his own organization, and good for him.
Dr Rusty you can shove ole Mitt where the sun don’t shine........pure RINO crap !
Indeed.
Mitt's not IT for me. I don't trust him as far as I can launch him.
Think that sums it up well.....
Count me in. Romney was my third choice after Fred and Duncan. That leaves only him.
The U.S. as a capitalistic country will truly be replaced by long-term socialism very soon. It doesn’t really matter who is running anymore.
From http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html
RINO-mitt’s Gun Control Views:
As governor, signed into law a permanent ban on assault weapons. Supported the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. Supported the Brady Bill requiring waiting periods for handgun purchases, but says it is no longer needed due to instantaneous background checks. Joined the NRA as a lifetime member in 2006.
FRED THOMPSON’s Views on guns:
Opposed the 1994 federal assault weapons ban and opposes a 10-year extension of the ban. Opposed 3-day gun show background check requirement in favor of a 24-hour check. Opposes mandatory trigger locks for handguns. Says gun-control measures do not reduce crime.
THERE IS NO WAY IN BLOODY HELL I’M VOTING FOR A GUN-GRABBING RINO... PERIOD.
Now that is just funny....
A bit early to appeal to the Fredheads isn’t it, Mitt is a good businessman, not so consistent as a Conservative and Fredheads really fought hard for Fred in 2008, along with Hunterites, these folks really believed in their guy.
Pity about Fred though.
Just leave it at Romney is a choice, leave conservative out of it.
“He’s for enforcing people to buy health insurance.
Bad position.”
Why?
When the rabble realizes it can vote away the treasury democracy is dead...
Same-sex "marriage" is still NOT legal in Massachusetts, and was NOT created by the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge ruling.
Timeline documents Mitt Romney's role in creating same-sex "marriages."
In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for same-sex "marriages" taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only issued an opinion and advised the Legislature to act (which it never did). Even the Court acknowledged that it had no power to change the law.
Governor Romney created these "marriages" through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new "marriage" licenses), and through his legal counsel threatened to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) "new law". He was not required by any constitutional mandate to do these things. On the contrary, his actions clearly violated his oath to uphold the laws of Massachusetts.
What did the Goodridge decision actually say?
To start with of all, the 2003 Goodridge SJC decision on same-sex "marriage", which reversed a lower court ruling, said 4 things:
First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. (And the logic they use for this is truly bizarre; you must read it in full sometime.)
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
What happened then?
The Legislature did nothing. It took no action. So after the 180 days Gov. Romney took action on his own!
As for me and my house, we will NOT vote for Mitt!!!!
maybe it’s time we all took our anger out on the GOP and demand a conservative candidate..........just a thought.
“maybe it’s time we all took our anger out on the GOP and demand a conservative candidate..........just a thought.’
It’s already being taken out on Dr Paul.
we all know this about Romney but if we all knew what Reagan was about before he changed I doubt any of us would have had the same thoughts about him as we do today. Look it up.
I keep trying to talk myself into voting for Romney if he gets the nomination. After all, maybe he was just lying through his teeth for all those years when he was defending liberal positions. (as opposed to lying to conservatives now) Still, having to hope the guy you’re voting for was lying then but not now just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
At the end of the day, I suspect I will write in Fred, and then just hope that Hillary or Barack Hussein lose. I know the money I had been donating every week to Fred, will not go to any other candidate.
yeah because ending all trade with the rest of the world and surrendering in Iraq is exactly what we need. /SARC
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.