Posted on 02/08/2008 3:05:07 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
One party, at least, is sad to see him go.
...When Democrats looked at Romney, we also saw the perfect candidate — for us to run against. The best presidential candidates have the ability to change people's minds. Mitt Romney never got that far because he never failed to change his own mind first.
So when Romney gamely suspended his campaign this afternoon, there was heartfelt sadness on both sides of the aisle. Democrats are sorry to lose an adversary whose ideological marathon vividly illustrated the vast distance a man must travel to reach the right wing of the Republican Party.
...Romney's farewell at the Conservative Political Action Committee meeting shows how far the once-mighty right wing has fallen. In an introduction laced with barbs in McCain's direction, Laura Ingraham's description of Mitt as "a conservative's conservative" said all there is to say about Romney's campaign and the state of the conservative movement. If their last, best hope is a guy who only signed up two years ago and could hardly convince them he belonged, the movement is in even worse shape than it looks.
...Romney pandered with conviction. He even tried to make it a virtue, defending his conversion on abortion by telling audiences that he would never apologize for being a latecomer to the cause of standing up for human life. Conservatives thanked him for trying but preferred the genuine article. In Iowa, Romney came in second to a true believer, and New Hampshire doesn't have enough diehards to put him over the top.
...McCain was authentic, Huckabee was conservative, and Romney couldn't convince enough voters he was either one.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
I’m gonna go vote for Mitt tomorrow.
I’m gonna go vote for Mitt tomorrow.
I’m gonna go vote for Mitt tomorrow.
Having personal experience with malignant melanoma, McCain could have a relapse at any time, and we might be right where we don’t want to be in November.
Why is it so hard for anyone to see that the way we have been running the country doesn’t work, so why can’t we give someone else a chance to do it differently? We need to quit selecting our candidates from the pool of “whoever came in second last time”, and hire someone (’cause that’s what we’re doing...hiring someone) who can look at our challenges with fresh eyes and come up with new solutions.
Kansas, it’s illegal to vote for Mitt three times tomorrow.
Mitt is a financial genius...just what we need at this time.
“Sometimes men can change”
The old Reagan thing from the Mitt people gets old but the reality is that Mitt is 60 years old and he did not change.
I remember Reagan and his conservatism before he ever became governor of California and I am younger than Mitt Romney.
Romney’s liberalism was untouched by Reagan’s 1964 speech, or the later governor years.
Romney’s liberalism was unfazed by the 60s and the Vietnam war, Romney’s proabortion views were unaffected by Roe vs Wade, nothing pulled Romney to the right, not his Mormonism, not the Reagan revolution not the Gingrich revolution, not the Clintons, nothing until he had that massive stroke or whatever in 2005 while preparing for this presidential run
But boy then it was Katy bar the door, he even became a hunter and gun owner, and lifetime NRA member all at once, oh yeah he became pro life at the same time and antigay, he longed to serve in Vietnam, it was a hell of a period for him 2005 to 2007.
“Mitt is a financial genius.”
Indeed.
Smart enough to figure out that he wasn’t gonna fool enough conservative activists into believing that he’d finally reached conservative puberty at age 60, no matter how much of his money he spent.
If Romney demonstrates Conservative values the next 5-10 years I would consider him as a candidate. That would give him time to firm up his values.
Democrats may have wanted to run against Romney, but they must be delighted about running against McCain.
I was willing to bet he would govern like a guy from Utah, not one from Massachusetts. The last I checked Utah is rolling up Republican majorities that make it the reddest state there is.
So many lies, where does one begin>
Mitt doesn’t control the rulings of Judges as in “gays in the Boy Scouts.
Mitt changed his position back in 2002 to being PRO LIFE. I did too - bite me! People are allowed to change their minds.
Mitt did not endorse gays in the military ...No President will over turn Roe vs Wade. That will also have to come from the U.S.S.C. and Mitt would have appointed conservative judges because he is one. It’s no wonder that CPAC had him much higher on the list as a Presidential nominee than McPain in the arse and the ole HUckster didn’t even make it.
BTW, it is MITT who was endorsed by the Pro life
You know you really need to GET REAL. You now have two DEMONCRATS, the Huckster and McPain in the arse as YOUR “conservative candidates. Just look at how “conservatie” they are:
Candidates on the Issues
Monday, January 28, 2008
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
ABORTION: Support abortion rights?
Huckabee: No.
McCain: No.
Romney: No. (Previously supported abortion rights.)
Huckabee: Supports Washington stimulus plan but questions “whose economy is going to be stimulated the most” if package is financed by foreign lenders and used to buy products made in China.
McCain: Cut corporate tax to 25 percent, let companies expense investments in equipment and technology in year of purchase instead of spread out.
Romney: $233 billion stimulus package includes $400 individual income tax rebates, cutting 10 percent income bracket to 7.5 percent. No rebates for low-income workers who pay no income tax. Cut corporate tax rate to 20 percent, provide tax incentives for investment in technology and equipment.
EDUCATION
Huckabee: Give states more authority to run education.
McCain: Vouchers for school choice, more community-college aid.
Romney: Supports school choice and No Child Left Behind law.
GAY MARRIAGE: Prohibit it with constitutional amendment?
Huckabee: Yes.
McCain: No.
Romney: Yes.
GLOBAL WARMING:
Huckabee: Supports increase to 35 mpg fuel efficiency standard by 2020, and emission caps.
McCain: Led Senate effort to cap greenhouse gas emissions; favors tougher fuel efficiency.
Romney: Says tougher mileage standards are a burden on automakers. Opposes mandatory caps on greenhouse gases unless other countries take similar steps. Says answer is to free the country from dependence on foreign oil.
IMMIGRATION
Huckabee: Has favored allowing illegal aliens to apply for legal status if they pay penalties, get work permits, register. As governor, opposed banning state services for illegal aliens.
McCain: Sponsored 2006 bill that proposed conditional path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Now says he would secure border first.
Romney: Opposes conditional path to citizenship for illegal aliens; once called that step reasonable. Backs fence and National Guard at border, and ID cards.
SOCIAL SECURITY:
McCain: Would consider “almost anything” in a compromise to save Social Security, yet rules out higher payroll taxes for now.
Huckabee: Higher benefits for people who delay retirement past 70. Let retirees choose to get benefits or a payment at death for heirs.
Romney: Higher taxes are “wrong way to go.”
STEM CELL RESEARCH: Relax restrictions on federal financing:
Huckabee: No.
McCain: Yes.
Romney: Apparently, no. As governor, tried to stop legislation that encouraged expanded embryonic stem cell research of the kind opposed by Bush.
TAXES
Huckabee: Replace income and investment taxes with national sales tax, sheltering purchases up to poverty line.
McCain: Opposed some of Bush’s tax cuts because they were not tied to spending cuts, now says the tax cuts should be permanent. Cut corporate tax rate to 25 percent.
Romney: Tax breaks to those earning less than $200,000, eliminating capital gains, interest and dividend taxes for most. Cut corporate tax to 20 percent.
If you want to continue lying - that’s your business.
As you continue to lie, atleast know what the TRUE FACTS are. In additin, understand the losers you have as “conservatives” - they’re relaly DEMONCRATS.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan28/0,4670,WhereTheyStand,00.html
It was different than that. At least, he says he’s changed. You can believe it or not. I choose to believe he’s truthful. I wasn’t born a conservative — perhaps you weren’t either. I learned as I matured. Change in itself is not a bad thing.
Of course they are. That said, if you changed your mind on abortion and a whole host of other issues in 2002, you wouldn't receive my vote for president. Mitt's "conversion" is just a little too convenient.
Better take this — a Slate leftist’s STATEMENT ABOUT “which GOP candidate the Democrats would have liked to run against” — with a huge truckload of salt.
I sense that, no matter which candidate(s) dropped out of the GOP running near the end of the game, this clown would have cackled the same thing. E.g., if Fred had done better and performed like Mitt did, Slate-boy here would have crowed, “Aw, gee, and I was so hoping to run against Fred, because of all these weaknesses.”
Trust me, the left has plenty of DIFFERENT reasons to be giddy that McCAIN is getting the nomination. The left just isn’t SAYING SO at this point.
"I’m gonna go vote for Mitt tomorrow."
Great move - all three of you!!!
LOL!
Here is Mitt's view on abortion in 2002. It is NOT Pro Life.
Sometimes men can change. Romney was far superior to mccain.
But Reagan didn't turn to conservatism and attempt to run for president a few months later. A person may recognize the truth of a different world-view, but it takes time to develop into a leader of that philosophy. If Romney did in fact do a 180, then he's a noob. If he didn't, then he is playing a part to get the job.
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.