Posted on 01/28/2008 4:43:23 PM PST by Checkers
It takes a lot more than being like McCain, also.
How is mandating that Massachussetts statist healthcare plan include abortion coverage (paid for by taxpayers) and that a representative of Planned Parenthood be on the board of supervisors “practicing core conservative principles?”
And from what I’ve read, Romney is wrong when he claims the courts made him do it. He signed legislation that drove the situation, from what Ive seen.
Agree.
“wonder how anyone who backs Mitt Romney can claim to have a clear idea of how he would govern as U.S. President. Any idea?” ~ unspun
This should give you some idea:
NY Times thecaucusblog/Comments section [Mass. voters talking about Romney on May 11, 2007]:
“.. he stated that he supported gay rights, but then attempted to have a Constitutional ammendment added to the ballot to have gay marriage banned in the state. ..”
“I firmly believe that he’ll ‘change his mind’ and go agree with his base if he’s elected just like he did on the abortion right’s issue. ..”
“.I will never forget when he vetoed the stem cell legislation after the bills’ sponsors had worked so hard at generating bi-partisan support. And he vetoed the bill ...”
“...If you want to know what Mitt is really about, please try to find his speeches to the Federalist Society to see what he’s really made of. ..”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
*
11/10/2005 Mitt Romney addresses the Federalist Society
http://www2.nationalreview.com/corner/romneyaddress.pdf
*
What is the Federalist Society?:
“...the Federalist Society, the expanding network of conservative lawyers who over the past quarter-century have played a leading role in reshaping the nation’s judiciary and setting high-level Republican administration policy. ..
[...]
“..One of the group’s founding fathers was Edwin Meese, who would soon become attorney general under President Ronald Reagan. Olson was part of that Justice Department, and so was Giuliani, who served as its third-highest official. The plan was to sow talented conservatives at every level of the federal judiciary and ultimately gain a foothold at the Supreme Court. “That was very much on our minds,” Olson said.
It appears to be working as planned. When he took office in 2001, Bush leaned heavily on Federalists to create a legal power structure to continue the work of seeding the judiciary. Roberts, along with fellow conservatives Alito, Scalia and Thomas, now form a formidable bloc on the Supreme Court.
[...]
Split among GOP camps
But as the Federalists have grown, they haven’t been immune to internal fissures. Federalists have key figures in both the Romney and Thompson campaigns who believe their candidate is a more worthy vessel for their legal philosophies. And they say they haven’t had to make the sort of compromise that Giuliani’s conservative supporters have.
David McIntosh, a former Indiana GOP congressman and gubernatorial candidate, is vice chairman of the Federalist Society, and he’s a domestic policy adviser to Thompson. Douglas Kmiec, another high-ranking official in the Reagan Justice Department, has gone with Romney, whom he calls “authentic.”
More: http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/giuliani_burnishes_conservativ.html
*
Governor Mitt Romney Announces The Advisory Committee On The Constitution And The Courts
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Constitution_Courts
bttt
THAT was a good one.
Now that is encouraging....I did just scan it...
Go Mitt!! (Hope that doesn’t piss you off)
Go Mitt!! (Hope that doesn’t piss you off /not)
Go Mitt!! (Hope that doesn’t piss you off /not)
I think the Ross Perot lovers are backing Ron Paul....they are busy out here in Southern California.
I thought so too. :) Nothing I like better than liberal voters in Mass. whining that they were “tricked” into voting for Romney. LOL
I had an interesting thought. Posit that the following four things are true:
1.) McCain’s comeback is largely due to the improvements in Iraq.
2.) McCain will win the nomination.
3.) McCain will lose against the (D) nominee.
4.) A different (R) nominee would have won the general election.
Given those four factors, it is not outside the realm of possibility that we will lose the White House -because- Iraq is going well. How’s that for irony?
I’ve never seen so much bandwagon jumping in my life.
Romney is a Massachusetts Flip-Flopping Liberal, our own version of John Kerry.
Huckabee=Socialism ordained by god.
People here need to get over the fact that neither of these candidates will do anything to stop the flow of illegal immigration. That is the biggest issue people have with McCain, and he is the only one of these 3 that has been honest about it.
If you like Socialism vote for Mitt or Huck. McCain is the only fiscal conservative out of all 3. Yeah, I know he voted against Bush’s Tax cut at first and used crappy class-warfare logic to explain it, but he voted to extend the cut later.
McCain is also more of a social conservative than the other 3. If he were tough on immigration, most Conservatives here would be singing his praises.
People say don’t be a one-issue voter, but with McCain on Immigration that is how I see quite a few Conservatives here.
**THAT was a good one.**
So are you saying that romney is beating others because he has money?
Unfortunately, that’s not what God tells us, is it?
Very interesting.
McCain/Kennedy Amnesty bill cost to taxpayers would have been 2.6 TRILLION DOLLARS.
Clearly conservative.
Excellent.
Mitt flew under their radar. LOL.
I will be extreamly unhappy if McCain is nominated. I will have to think if I will even vote. I will be so upset if it is him, for the first time in my life, I will have to seriously consider sitting out an election. I never thought I would say that.
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.