I have seen the light...
Mitt the life long hunter and NRA member (since 2006) Pro life (Again just so happens to have occurred leading up to this cycle) and open market health care guy (Romneycare, the plan even Kerry and Kennedy, two conservative stalwarts like, was just an anomaly currently sucking money out of MA citizens) is the man, we should have him be the nominee!
The problem with Mitt was not his conversions (though the constant comparison to his stance on abortion with Reagan's disgusts me to this day) but what drove them. There are conversions of conscience and conversions of expediency, and his were way too convenient.
Given his dynamic personality he drew attention, but to consider him a Conservative stalwart, no matter who pimped him, is a bit much, and money played a factor, his reach was deep, just not deep enough to sell the man to the faithful rank and file. If he was all that, he would have done better, but he was just not convincing in his role as Conservative, and there was a reason for that. Not even the support of the pundits, for their various reason's and interest, could get that much lipstick together.
As far as Rush, given McCain, even Romney is a Conservative, but again, it is a matter of Degrees, there are Democrats that are stanch conservative verse McCain. As it was he never was enough of a threat to talk about his conservative shortcomings, but especially now with the Romneycare fiasco in MA, it would come up, and will come up if he is one the ticket.
As far as being in the minority, when it finally got down McCain and Huck vs Mitt even I voted for him in our polls. I also would rather have the flu than a heart attack, but prefer neither...
I never quite saw it a 75%, except when Huck was finally not in it and it was McCain and Mitt only. Not a big leap there, nor an endorsement of Romney's conservative Bonafides. Last man standing is more like it, kind of like the guy with the lowest passing grades in Med School is still called Doctor...
But certainly you would have to agree that all these conservatives would have known all that you do, & yet still backed Romney. You state that he didn't connect w/ the faithful rank & file. Why then, did he garner so much of that vote? Again, McCain didn't win b/c of conservatives! He won on the backs of Dems & Indy's. Had the primaries been exclusively Republican, Romney may have won in a landslide. Your assertions just don't pan out.
As far as Rush is concerned. Do you remember when McCain won the nomination? He was telling his listeners that he might vote for Hillary. Coulter actually did tell her listeners that that's what she was going to do. Now, if they were going to do that against McCain, why not against Romney if he was such a RINO? Using your analogy, McCain was certainly better than Hillary from a purely party perspective. Last man standing would have been Hillary. So why not use the same tact against Romney? If you're going to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater, why not go all the way? Because they didn't see him as the RINO you do. They probably know a lot more about him than you do. Apparently you don't feel the same.
Although I don't follow these guys blindly, I do trust their judgment as I verify. No offense, but I'll take their judgment over yours. I think they know a little more. They didn't just tacitly endorse the man, they did so w/ vigor.
One of the biggest problems we conservatives face right now is eating our own. That had better change quickly IMHO.
Massachusetts - Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s Desk
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
On June 24, 2004 at approximately 11:20 AM , the Senate took the last legislative vote on S.2367 and sent it to Governor Romney`s desk for his consideration. Representing the greatest set of firearm law reforms since the passage of the Commonwealth`s worst in the nation gun laws, S.2367 is a breath of fresh air for law abiding gun owners. Governor Romney is expected to sign the bill into law later this week.
While not perfect by any means, this bill represents a step forward for gun owners in Massachusetts. 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.
S.2367 does the following:
Instructs the Executive Director of the Criminal History Systems Board to make the Firearms Identification Card and the License To Carry a Firearm the same size as a driver`s license;
Changes the term of a Firearms Identification Card and a License to Carry to six years;
Creates a grace period of 90 days, if the Firearms Identification Card or License to Carry holder applies for renewal before the expiration date, and if the application for renewal is not denied;
Creates a Firearms Licensing Review Board. Applicants disqualified by a misdemeanor record, from obtaining a License To Carry or Firearms Identification Card, may file a petition for review of eligibility with the board, five years after conviction, adjudication, commitment, probation or parole;
and in the case where an officer is confiscating the guns of a person with an expired license, requires the officer to provide a written inventory and receipt for all guns.
Despite the efforts of some (including The Boston Globe) to spin this bill as an extension of or creation of a new “Assault Weapons” ban, the bill makes no net changes to the Commonwealth`s laws regarding those types of firearms. The three sections referencing them merely dealt with re-affirming the definitions of what an “Assault Weapon” could be.
Here are just some of the points that the media (including The Boston Globe) got wrong.
Myth: Some headlines claimed that the legislature voted to expand the ban on the sale of the same 19 guns that the federal government has banned.
Fact: The guns are already banned in Massachusetts . The legislature only voted to clarify the definition of so-called “assault weapons,” but made no changes to the number of guns included.
Myth: The gun ban was extended.
FACT: OUR STATE’S GUN BAN WAS NOT DUE TO DISAPPEAR, NOR WILL IT BECOME INVALID IF THE FEDERAL BAN SUNSETS IN SEPTEMBER.
Myth: The legislature somehow “won over” gun-rights supporters by including reforms.
Fact: NRA and Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) had made it very clear to the legislature that we would not give up any ground. NRA AND GOAL SUPPORTED THIS BILL BECAUSE IT DID NOT BAN ANY GUNS, AND BECAUSE IT MADE MUCH-NEEDED REFORMS.
Myth: Those legislators that wanted to expand the semi-auto gun ban claimed that they “spearheaded” S.2367.
Fact: Credit should be given to Senator Stephen Brewer (D- Barre) and Senator Richard T. Moore (D - Uxbridge) for the reform language.
Myth: The Massachusetts House approved a new version of the ban that would decouple the state definitions from the federal ones.
Fact: The bill merely takes the existing state references to federal law, and fixes the language to a point in time in 1994. Because that is the federal language is currently in effect, THE NET EFFECT ON MASSACHUSETTS GUN OWNERS IS ZERO. NO NEW GUN BANS ARE BANNED. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE STATE LANGUAGE IN EFFECT BEFORE THIS BILL WAS NEVER SET TO EXPIRE.
With that in mind, NRA members should be very pleased in knowing that their efforts to educate and work with their local representatives and senators resulted in a successful reform action.
Thanks to you and the Gun Owners` Action League, lawful gun owners can now take advantage of this first set of real reforms in over five years.
http://www.nraila.org//Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=1149
Prolife — yeah, you nailed him. The guy is just itching to be president to make abortions.....what is it again? legal? my bad, they already are. Give me a break already.
Health care? It was so much better in MA when the taxpayer was just writing blank checks for freecare. Brings a tear to the eye just remembering it. One would never guess that the insurance program you are referring to is incredibly popular here in MA. Pay no attention to that at all. What the hell do I know anyway, I only live here. The state should have no business deciding how state money is spent. Freecare is the way to go...
The politics which went into the decision by both Reagan and Romney is the valid comparison. You be disgusted though as facts can do that to some people, especially the politically naive.
It was never Huckabee out of it and McCain and Mitt only. Mitt would be the nomination if that were the case.