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 ...
Did you watch it?
“Who is your candidate?”
I was wavering between Thompson and Hunter for a while, and a few weeks ago, after researching some of the more ah, colorful articles about Ron Paul on this forum, realized that what I had been hearing was a load of crap and that he is the most consistent voice for liberty and small government out there.
What would be in your watning?
And his claim to have the endorsement of the NRA when that did not happen.
He is a chronic panderer. He will say anything to anyone to try and win an election. As one pundit noted, he exudes all the sincerity of a telemarketer. You can post all the quotes you want. But you ain't selling me. I've been around long enough to know a bull**** artist when I see one.
And it ain't that I'm pushing Rudy or McCain or Huck. I'm just completely disgusted at what the GOP has become that our stable has been reduced to such a sorry state.
There you go again with your lies and distortions. Mitt has always been conservative. Do some research and get back to me.
“Yeah, how DARE we compare his rhetoric now, when he needs our vote, to the past when he did not.”
dirtboy, I saidearlier go ahead, do that. those comparisons have been done but I was showing earlier in this thread how MITT WAS A MOSTLY CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN 1994. So you have a mostly conservative guy in the past, who today is running on a more fully conservative agenda - and still people are complaining because they think running conservative is “pandering”...
Yes compare his WHOLE record - dont just take a few youtube snippets and then make false generalization about his whole record... He’s not pandering, he is running as the kind of reaganite conservative candidate we OUGHT TO SUPPORT.
Maybe you should review that earlier post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1957875/posts?page=347#311
She wanted me to come up and see it, but I was working from home and couldn't indulge her. She knows stupid when she sees it.
BTW, and I hate when people drag their wives into things, but still, pandering is not the correct word to use for what he was doing. He wasn’t promising anybody anything. What he was doing is relating to the crowd, or at least trying to.
It was probably painful for some people to watch an old white guy getting along with a black crowd like that, a lot of people get really uncomfortable thinking about being in that situation and they assume the person they are watching is also uncomfortable. But if you look at the faces the people with him weren’t uncomfortable, or staring like “what is he doing”. They were enjoying his company.
That’s what candidates do, reach out to voters and get them to like them. Voter outreach, shaking hands, kissing babies, is not pandering. Pandering has a definition, this isn’t it.
“Those who think Joseph Smith was a clever liar” ... those who think that fact *matters* in the 2008 presidential are the ones who might be. That fact doesnt matter. It’s not relevent to who is best suited to be President.
So you’re for McCain?
You can claim otherwise all you want. You can lie but I ain't fooled.
Mitt was pro-abort in 1994. He was pro-gun-control. He is pro-government-mandate health care. He pushed gay rights.
Those are opposite of key conservative positions. But you dismiss them. Spinners always do dismiss the facts.
I’ve never seen Paul as a viable candidate. He does have a few interesting things to say but how can he get the nomination?
I posted some of Romney’s gun bills as Governor. Here’s more. All the bills he signed were helpful to gun owners:
http://www.freerepublic.com/~UnmarkedPackage/
In 2005, Governor Romney Signed Into Law A Provision Providing Free Replacement Licenses.
(Gun Owners’ Action League Official Website, “GOAL’s Record of Success,” Accessed 12/31/2007)
In 2005, Governor Mitt Romney Suspended ‘Administrative Fees’ To The Natural Heritage And Endangered Species Fund Of Massachusetts.
(Gun Owners’ Action League Official Website, “GOAL’s Record of Success,” Accessed 12/31/2007)
In July 2006, Gov. Romney signed legislation requiring all new hunters to take a hunter education course. The measure had the strong support of sportsmen and gun owners.
“We are pleased with the passage of yet another correction of Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998, which created a confusing standard for acquiring a hunting, sporting or fishing license,” said James Wallace, GOAL’s executive director. “Prior to the passage of this law some eight years ago, hunter education was mandatory for all first time hunters. While GOAL does not normally support mandatory training, it is our belief that every first time hunter should be exposed to the ethics, safety aspects and laws in Massachusetts regarding hunting before taking to the field for the first time.”
(Office of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Signs Legislation to Promote Hunter Safety,” Press Release, 7/06/2006)
On the 31st anniversary of the Gun Owners’ Action League, Governor Romney declared May 7, 2005 as “The Right to Bear Arms Day” in Massachusetts to honor “the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense.”
(Scott Helman, “Romney retreats on gun control,” The Boston Globe, 1/14/2007)
Opponents of gun control and critics of Governor Romney point to the fact that he signed firearms legislation in July, 2004 that included a ban of assault weapons in Massachusetts (S.2367). However, the bill only reaffirmed an existing Massachusetts state ban on assault weapons that was enacted as part of sweeping gun control laws passed in Massachusetts in 1998, five years before Romney took office, and didn’t ban any additional guns. … The state ban of assault weapons enacted in 1998 was not due to disappear, nor would it have become invalid with the sunset of the federal ban in September, 2004. … The bill was passed in the Senate by a vote of 36 - 1 in favor and the House passed it with no amendments or debate on a “voice” vote. This represented by far the broadest support a reform bill has ever seen in the Massachusetts State House. Only one legislator in the entire building voiced opposition to the bill.
(National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action, “Massachusetts - Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s Desk,” Press Release, 6/29/2004)
The firearms reform bill signed by Governor Romney in 2004 had the endorsement of the NRA (a MUST READ). It was also supported by the Gun Owners’ Action League, law enforcement and Massachusetts gun owners. The Executive Director of GOAL attended the signing ceremony for the bill. The legislation added several measures these groups favored, including a lengthening of the terms of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry, namely;
1) Extending the term of a firearm identification card and a license to carry firearms from four years to six years,
2) Granting a 90-day grace period for holders of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry who have applied for renewal, and
3) Creating a seven-member Firearm License Review Board to review firearm license applications that have been denied.
“This is truly a great day for Massachusetts’ sportsmen and women. These reforms correct some serious mistakes that were made during the gun debate in 1998, when many of our state’s gun owners were stripped of their long-standing rights to own firearms.”
(MA State Senator Stephen M. Brewer (D), Press Release, 7/01/2004)
“I want to congratulate everyone that has worked so hard on this issue. Because of their dedication, we are here today to sign into law this consensus piece of legislation. This change will go a long way toward fixing the flaws created by the 1998 law. Another key piece to this legislation addresses those citizens who have applied for renewals. If the government does not process their renewal in a timely fashion, those citizens won’t be put at risk because of the 90 day grace period that is being adopted today.”
(MA State Representative George N. Peterson, Jr. (R), Press Release, 7/01/2004)
“There are a lot of good things in the bill,” said Jim Wallace, legislative director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, the state’s leading pro-gun group. “In all, the bill represents a healing process, or the beginning of the healing process, between lawful gun owners and the Massachusetts Legislature.”
(Scott S. Greenberger, “State moves on assault weapons ban,” The Boston Globe, 6/24/2004)
The firearms reform bill signed in 2004 prohibited the sale of the same weapons in Massachusetts banned in the 1998 legislation but loosened other restrictions imposed by the 1998 gun bill. Furthermore, it protected Massachusetts’ gun owners with a permanent reference to federal definitions that provided them with a list of exempt firearms, numbering nearly 700, which could not be declared “assault weapons.” Therefore, after Governor Romney signed the gun bill in 2004, gun owners in Massachusetts had fewer restrictions on gun ownership than at any time since 1998.
So long as being “blind” to their proclivities doesn’t involve changing the definition of marriage, no problem.
Hank
Yeah, I have to agree with you on that. Those few showed up on every thread making it seem like everyone was involved.
It took a Carter to get a Reagan.....
Hillary 08...
Enjoy President Hillary.
Health care in Mass is with private insurers.
There you go again with your lies and distortions.
“I’ve never seen Paul as a viable candidate. He does have a few interesting things to say but how can he get the nomination?”
I voted for the guy I thought could win last time and he did.
What a mess.
This time I vote for my principles.
Soon it will be just Ron and Mitt left unless McCain can raise enough cash.
You are correct, of course. I mispoke (mis-wrote?).
I still think that Romney has a hard row to hoe and that he is not a shoe-in for the presidency if he is nominated.
Most of my conservative friends are contemplating *not* voting rather than vote for Romney or Huckabee. This is a first, as is my own realization that I have serious issues with voting for him.
There are a lot of people like me. And it’s a shame.
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.