tax-paid abortions
Mitt Romney on abortion, gay rights, gun control, RomneyCare, mandates, etc, in his own words, in Technicolor and SurroundSound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7OQoBxZZPqU
Negative ads work.
Bout time someone on our side figured that out.
Someone needs to run an advertisement featuring the video of mittens at a recent town hall in which mitt actually stated that he would keep some of the ‘good’ parts of 0-care. Figures that mittens knows some of the ‘good’ parts because he and his friends probably wrote them for romneycare.
With a smile and a soft voice he will carry the big stick of TRUTH!
GOOOOO NEWT Gingrich!
I have a feeling Romney would love to call in sick for today’s debate.
Re: Romney camp claiming that "the state faced a court order to cover abortions, and it's misleading to suggest he ever pushed taxpayer funding for abortions" -- the discussions we had on FR in January '08 clearly showed then that the "court order" being referenced by the Romney camp references mandates that Massachusetts cover abortions for rape & incest ONLY! (Not $50 abortions funded by Bay State taxpayers under RomneyCare!)
More evidence of the less-than-forthright Mitt and his Mittiacs and Mittites who by such words show they are indeed clones off the old block.
In late 2007 and January '08 we had FR Mittiacs trying to defend these MA abortions. They would claim -- like Mitt is now -- that this was a court order and that these $50 abortions "were thrown in by a judge. Romney had nothing to do with it."
I said even back then: Under normal circumstances, this would be a half truth they were telling. But since abortions due to rape & incest are significantly less than 1% of all abortions, their truth telling in this instance was of an equal percentage.
Bottom line: If Romney can't be held accountable for abortion subsidies in '06 & beyond in MA, then Obama can't be held accountable for taxpayer-funded abortions under ObamaCare!
ALL: This is why every pro-lifer needs to vote AGAINST Romney!!!!
More on this next post.
Gingrich shouldn't have too much trouble with that with all he has to choose from as a conservative!
I hope Newt can get his mojo back. The debate should be interesting.
I still don’t quite understand what happened to Newt ????
More on Romney camp claiming that "the state faced a court order to cover abortions, and it's misleading to suggest he ever pushed taxpayer funding for abortions" -- the discussions we had on FR in January '08 clearly showed then that the "court order" being referenced by the Romney camp references mandates that Massachusetts cover abortions for rape & incest ONLY! (Not $50 abortions funded by Bay State taxpayers under RomneyCare!)
In the '08 campaign debates, Mitt Romney was on record saying:
(A) "Commonwealth Care" mandated insurance for the 7% of Bay State residents who did not have insurance.
(B) One-fourth of those who lacked insurance in the Bay State--almost 2% of the population--were earning $75,000 or more.
Then, RomneyCare came along and offered $50 abortions by subsidizing almost 2% of the female population who were earning $75,000 or more (women who were NOT covered by the court mandate -- as it dealt with Medicaid funded abortions)...
...and another 2% to almost 3% of the female population were likely women above or around the Medicaid border for receiving such assistance.
Translation: 4-5% of the female population in MA can thank RomneyCare for getting cheap abortions they were not eligible under Medicaid-provisions pre-RomneyCare.
Bottom line: Even excluding abortions in MA tied to rape and incest, RomneyCare's been the likely DIRECT ties "sponsor" of 1 out of every 20-25 abortions in the Bay State.
Mitt Romney, the deep-coffers source of dismembering 1 in 20-25 babies in the Bay State.
Finally! Someone is going to talk about RomneyCare. Why bring up just the abortion issue, though, Newt? Hit the whole darned thing! Talk about it being the original ObamaCare!
Newt or someone needs to point out that whether or not Republicans agree with it or not, Romney has said many things that the Democrats will be able to wallop him with. Newt should ask him, how is Romney going to defend remarks like this about foreclosures when Obama brings them up...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/18/mitt-romney-foreclosure-relief_n_1017751.html
“Don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” Romney said when asked what he would do to jump-start the floundering housing market.
“Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up,” he continued. “The Obama administration has slow walked the foreclosure process ... that has long existed and as a result we still have a foreclosure overhang.”
Good for Newt. I like him to take out Romney and self immolate the way he has been doing for the past two plus weeks. It will then be between Perry and Santorum. Small government conservative vs. big government conservative. Executive leader vs. legislative leader. At least, it will be between two humble, grounded, grown poor, American success stories in Perry and Santorum.
Not an ego maniac like Newt and a twist in the wind stick figure Romney.
Newt better pump up the volume tonight and tomorrow morning or we are all going to be left with choosing between Mitt from Column A and Mitt from Column B.
We don’t want Romneycare anymore than we wanted Obamacare.
Throw out the bum.
GO NEWT!
The Man Who Couldn’t Beat Obama Endorses the Man Who Couldn’t Beat McCain
Winston Churchill was not a handsome or imposing man. He was very difficult to put up with.. arrogant, drunken, slovenly, a bully at times, either depressed or wildly ecstatic, rude to employees, in short, he was often insufferable.
But his saving grace, that which allowed him to achieve and wield great power for good was his intelligence and his gift of oratory. When the man spoke the earth seemed to tremble.
Newt reminds me of Churchill for many of the same reasons.
Remember that in spite of Churchill’s flaws he was the one man able to rally a nation against incredible odds in a war that most thought was a lost cause. Where would the world be now if not for that flawed man?
I support Newt! Not in spite of his flaws but in fact because of them. We need someone with the will to fight. I believe Newt is the right man at the right time.... if not Newt then just who has both the intellect and will to accomplish the impossible and place this nation on a road to moral and economic recovery?
If Newt does not get the nomination and win the election then we will all soon or late come to wish for what might have been.