Posted on 02/02/2008 1:12:31 PM PST by freemike
in the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, it’s John McCain at 30%, Mitt Romney at 30%, and Mike Huckabee at 21%. Ron Paul is supported by 5%
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...
Reagan wasn't all over the map like Romney, who has taken over a dozen positions on general pro-life stances all over the map...Pro-abortion 1970 on....I mean he even starts waffling away from wanting to be called "pro-choice" in 2001 when he tried to briefly side-step/elevate his pro-abortion rep in Utah...then back to more pro-abortion rhetoric before coming out as hardline pro-abortion as possible in 2002 & beyond...only to undergo a pro-life "conversion" in late '04 yet still spout even more pro-abortion rhetoric sandwiched in between pro-life statements/pro-life actions in 2005...pro-abortion actions in 2006 (which he later defines as "pro-life")...2007 says he was effectively pro-choice over previous years but was never pro-choice...has always been pro-life.
In fact, let's have a "mock" "interview" of Mitt, shall we? --using his own actual words as the substantive part of his "responses" (his actual words are underlined):
Q Mr. Romney, tell us about how you've switched your attitude on abortion.
A "Yes. While I never said I was pro-choice... my position was effectively pro-choice." [Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007]
Q So since you're not "effectively pro-choice" anymore, you've changed. But what do you mean, "I never said I was pro-choice?" According to the records, didn't you say in 1994 that Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's?" [Source: Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05] Didn't you follow that up 11 years later on May 27, 2005 after your pro-life "conversion" by saying "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice?" Isn't "free to choose" and "promise to maintain...choice" the same thing as "pro-choice?" (Or are you just parsing words?) Didn't you also make multiple 'pro-choice' promises in 2002?"
A "I've made it quite clear since at least the Summer of 2001 that I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." [Source: Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01]
Q "If you didn't want to be labeled as 'pro-choice' as of 2001, then why 'promise to maintain...choice' multiple times in both 2002 & 2005? (I guess I'm a bit befuddled here)"
A "Listen, 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..." [Source: Mitt Romney, interview with Fox Chris Wallace, Aug. 12, 2007]
Q "...But excuse me, sir, just because you in your internal conversations haven't labeled yourself 'pro-choice' doesn't mean that you haven't spent a dozen-year period between 1994 and 2005 spouting 'pro-choice' expressions. Isn't that so?
A "Listen, I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." [Source: Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007]
Q "But we started out this interview where you were totally coming clean on your past years and you said your 'position was effectively pro-choice.' What was your record as governor of Massachusetts, then?"
A "I've been quite forthright on my positions ever since I took the campaign trail in South Carolina in January of 2007. I'll repeat what I said then: 'Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice.'" [Source: Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07]
Q "So we have established, then, that you were indeed 'pro-choice' over the last multiple years..."
A "...But you didn't let me finish. Eleven days after I made that statement, I also told South Carolina's citizens that 'I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life.'" [Source: Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007]
Q "OK, I'm getting rather confused again. How can you be 'pro-choice'...over the last multiple years and yet 'always [be] for life?'"
A "Well, that's because of my track record as governor. You see 'As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.'"
Q "But why did you then tell me that 'Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice?'"
A "Well, some people interpret it that way because of $50 Commonwealth Care abortions and a Planned Parenthood League representative who in now permanently attached to that process."
Q "But you've told me that 'every action' you took 'as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life' you 'stood on the side of life?'"
A "Uh, excuse me, but my press secretary just handed me a copy of my Katie Couric interview on embryonic stem cell research, and I want to review it...feel free to watch":
COURIC INTERVIEW: "...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos..."
Q "Wow, Mitt, that's great. I don't think I've ever heard a POTUS candidate ever talk about adopting frozen surplus embryos before. That's great!"
A "Shh. (You'll miss my next sentence)"
COURIC INTERVIEW: "But if a PARENT decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." [Dec. 5, 2007 interview with CBS' Katie Couric]
Q "So 'pro-choice' parents--and you admit they are 'parents' of adoptable embryos--if they 'decide' to 'donate' a young one for purposes of dissection...that's 'acceptable?' [More head shaking] And this was the very issue that 'converted' you to the "I was always for life" 'new' position, eh?"
Pass and stomp him Mitt!....Pass and stomp!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1963868/posts
Romney ahead as early Maine caucus returns counted - MAINE LIVE thread
KJCT8 News ^ | February 2, 2008 | AP
Does anyone know (or knew) Main has a caucus TODAY?!
Don’t forget...
We did it once for Harriet Meyers. We may be able to do it again!!!!!
“Mort suggested that Mitt become the GOP’s biggest cheerleader. That he campaign like crazy for McCain assuming he loses to him, then for 4 years go everywhere supporting candidates and making the GOP’s case.”
Yeah?!!! That’s a bunch of bull, they would love it wouldn’t they? If Mitt wasted his talent being a useless shill for the Republican Establishmnet. They can just keep on having their wet dreams. Mitt won’t waste his talent on the likes of McCain or any of the creeps like Arnold who endorsed McCain! No, no, no, Mitt is way too talented to let himself be a used piece of waste. It’s just their big fantasy to justify trying to toss him aside, as if that could ever be a good thing!
*snort* Perfect description of what’s happening. The MSM just WANTS McCain to win so badly that they’re trying to convince everyone that it already has.
He gave us free will, so if we lose, it's because too many chose to act in a way that could cause the loss, and they shouldn't blame Him.
That WAS a silly decision; especially for those states that have residents who celebrate Mardi Gras!
OK, this is the February 1st numbers. That’s January 29, 30, 31, and 1st. Florida was January 28, so this is all post “bounce”. Guiliani was Wednesday, so this is 3 days after that, and it was rumored during the day before it happened.
So maybe McCain didn’t get the bounce he expected, at least among republicans. I really expected worse, but it could still happen.
That’s still 15% undecided, if they break wrong it would be bad news.
Yes, but what we need are the polls in the separate States with the number of delegates.
And, I hate to rain on the parade; but the problem isn’t the Republicans. The problems is that so many of these primaries let Independents and Democrats vote for the Republican candidates.
The problem is that our primary process has been subverted and sabotaged, and I believe that the PRIME MISSION of FREE REPUBLIC in the FUTURE should be to get the Republican primaries closed, so they reflect the views of real Republicans.
We need to wait till after the coming debacle and then fight to get back control or at least some real power in the Republican party. That means getting involved in State Republican activities so we can change the primary process.
Ford, George HW Bush and Dole are the legacy of the moderates. I liked them all, but I see also that they lost elections.
Reagan and George W Bush are the legacy of the conservatives. Whatever you currently think about W, his legacy is Roberts and Alito, which the conservatives here had a big hand in putting on the bench of SCOTUS. And both these Presidents won their own reelections, even if they lost Congress in their second midterm elections.
Reagan “shilled” for the Republicans between 1976 and 1980, after losing the nomination to Ford.
Nixon “shilled” for the Republicans between 1960 and 1968 after ‘losing’ the election to Kennedy.
Going to party functions, giving speeches about our values, and helping raise money for good Republicans in local and State and Congressional races is a decent and good way for Romney to become better known and supported around the country and also for us to become more sure about whether his values and principles are stable and enduring now.
About his campaigning like crazy for McCain...
I think he should campaign as much for McCain (if McCain wins the nomination, and I’m still praying he won’t) ... he should campaign for McCain as much as McCain campaigned for George W. in 2000.
And how will you feel when McCain picks Huckabee to be his VP running mate?
The fix is in.
Mike Huckabee is running for VP, the only people that don’t know that might be some of his most loyal supporters.
Oh, we will hear about John McCain and Cindy McCain’s baggage but not till October.
It will be the October surprise, like the W’s old DUI record was in 2000.
Romney 52%, McCain 22%
!!!!!!
---per politico
You forgot one thing: Trend. The state by state polls have shown an uptick for Romney in the last 4 days, and the national is the most recent. Add to that the fact that McCain is getting his calabasa kicked in in Maine today, Romney is beating him like a bongo, 2-1, with half the vote in. .......This was not predicted.
People are beginning to notice that every liberal in America is enthralled with McCain, and that's causing people to look a little deeper
Not gonna happen. McCain will leave him at the altar like a jilted lover. Huck should get out now.
I hope it is turning. If McCain wins on Super Tuesday the liberal media will make him the front runner. This is a pivotal point in the race and for the future of the United States. McCain has to be stopped this week or maybe never.
McCain is the biggest threat to the United States, to our way of life, to our prosperity , to our liberty and even to our ability to survive.
McCain has fought for at least a decade to give Amnesty to 30 million illegals and then their families back in the 3rd world. McCain will allow those 30 million illegals to bring to the U.S. 100 million of their 3rd world relatives.So McCain is lying now when he is saying he is not for Amnesty. Huckabee would do the same.
This is the plan of Marxists/liberals like McCain, to import 3rd world socialist, ignorant,illiterate voters so these new voters can vote for Democrats and for socialism. Then we would all be starving in a socialist people’s Republic of the United States.The Soviet Union collapsed because of socialism. We are headed that way if we don’t start reducing the size of government. McCain, Huckabee , Hillary and Democrats are pure evil for wanting to push a failed system like socialism on the American people just so they can gain power.
McCain would cripple U.S industry with global warming regulations and laws.
McCain would give Amnesty to 30 million illegals and their families back in the 3rd world.
McCain would raise taxes ( he voted against the Bush tax cuts).
McCain would use his McCain-FeinGold to crack down on blogs and talk radio. This guy is a Stalinist.
McCain is no conservative but McCain is a liberal/socialist as his record shows not as his lying mouth says. It would be worse if McCain won over Hillary. At least with Hillary as president the Republicans in congress can mount an opposition. And Democrats will get the blame for all the misery they will cause. Republicans will be pressured to support the liberal statist, Stalinist agenda of McCain if he became president.
www.cologop.org/pages/caucus101.cfm
They will be able to find their nieghborhood caucus site.
You could be right.
Not the first time Jumpin’ John has stabbed a fellow Republican in the back.
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.