Posted on 05/28/2007 3:38:23 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
McCain's deeply flawed immigration bill has been a recent "flash point" for criticism. McCain has obviously taken the attacks on this horrible legislation a little too personally and has wrongly punched back on the personal level (similar to his personal attack on Romney's conviction during the 2nd debate that he switches positions "during even numbered years".)
From a Newsweek article:
Referring to Romney's stance, McCain said: "Maybe I should wait a couple of weeks and see if it changes because it's changed in less than a year from his position before."
Then followed his "varmint" comment which was an obviously planned line fed to him from someone in the campaign.
So, what's so desperate about attacking a cheif rival? The attacks, on the surface, speak of an general unease in the McCain camp about their own failings and Romney's continued successes. But it's not just the attacks, but the substance of the attacks and the actual accusations being leveled. McCain's campaign aides are sensing the fear of a Rising Romney and have resorted to DNC-like charges at Mitt's apparent lack of core convictions.
From Newsweek recently regarding the varmint comment:
To which John Weaver, a top McCain aide replied: “It was a joke and, by the way, Mitt Romney should be mocked! There isn’t a single issue in politics he hasn’t flip-flopped on."
From a Mother Jones article another top McCain aid said:
"Mitt Romney has been consistent in one regard: that nearly every position he holds now is opposite of what it was when he was governor of Massachusetts."
That same article also had the following zinger:
He [Romney] previously held all of the same positions as Giuliani -- he's just trying to lie about them while Giuliani is standing for what he believes in.
This is a segue into the deeper theme they are trying to lay. A smattering of recent quotes is enlightening:
Foremost is the charge that he's a campaign convert to conservatism after running as a more moderate or liberal candidate in Massachusetts.
Even some conservative commentators like Deroy Murdock (a big-time Rudy supporter), get in on the game from time to time.
Romney is either a true, rock-ribbed conservative who played a Rockefeller Republican to get elected in Massachusetts, or he is a genuine, limousine liberal portraying a conservative to win the 2008 GOP nomination. This fine thespian has lost himself so thoroughly in both these roles that no one really knows where the performer ends and the characters begin.
Bill Maher recently said "If Mitt Romney were a movie, it would be "Say Anything." (I'm sure he wouldn't apply that same critical humor to his buddy Bill Clinton, eh?)
The overall image being portrayed of Romney (and don't ever think these lines of attack aren't driven by the media moguls of the MSM) is that he's a man with no convictions, who will say or do anything if it is politically expedient. However, their only other "dig" against Romney is not just his religious affiliation, but that he's unabashedly a devout and practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints--somehow implying that he's TOO dedicated and true to his core convictions, namely his faith and his family. It would be in their best interest to decide on one line of attack. If they keep pounding both of these drums even the average American voter will realize they are being sold a false bill of goods. We won't be buying it guys!
I've blogged before (here and here) that Romney was never close to being the liberal that some are claiming. He was actually far more of a conservative than even a moderate. Below I'll put in the image again of one of his 1994 campaign flyers and let you judge. Aside from the well documented, AND WELCOMED, shift on abortion he's been rock solid as a conservative then and now (BTW Romney vetoed the "employer mandate" portion of the MA healthcare plan)
I'd like to see McCain, his aides, and the DNC explain their position that Mitt has "flipped on every political issue" when he's been consistant on 23 of the 24 (or 96%) issues in this flyer. They're busy enough spinning their own problems, so I probably shouldn't "pile on" right now!
ROFL...
Aauughhhhhh, Not another lying liberal Boston Globe hit piece. Have you no shame?
You missed the big hits on Romney-—he opens ceral boxes from the wrong side and ties his left shoe first!
Now, who is going to be the best President?
Isn`t that a bit more important then what he may of said about an issue he really won`t effect as POTUS?
None of it changes a thing about Romney's liberal record, or the deceptions he's now trying to perpetrate on unsuspecting conservatives.
1994:
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it."
2002:
"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights."
1994:
In seeking the support of the Log Cabin Republican Club, Romney wrote them a letter promising that "as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent." [His opponent at the time was Sen. Ted Kennedy, perhaps the foremost advocate of homosexual rights in the U.S. Senate.]
2005:
"There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sax couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions." [the Romney administration subsequently named two homoesexual men as "adoptive parents of the year" for 2006.]
2002:
"Basically I see the provision of basic civil rights and domestic partnership benefits [as] a campaign against Tom Finneran. I see Tom Finneran and the Democratic leadership as having opposed the application of domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples and I will support and endorse efforts to provide those domestic partnership benefits to gay and lesbian couples."
""I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
[The Governor's Commission was perhaps the largest government-sanctioned promoter of the homosexual agenda to children in the United States. This entity spent millions of state tax dollars promoting the gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender (GLBT) radicalism in Massachusetts schools by inundating them with GLBT speakers, presentations, films, books, parades, dances, posters, handouts, and help establishing GLBT clubs on campus. These events provided a model for homosexual activists around the country.]
When Romney was running against Sen. Ted Kennedy, Bay Windows [the gay publication] asked him how he would have voted on an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would ban federal funds from public schools which are “encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” He answered:
"I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party." - Bay Windows, 8/25/1994
2002, during his last run for public office:
Romney: "I will not change any provision of Massachusetts' pro-choice laws."
I’m getting tired...Yeah, spinning is hard work.
In reviewing what I have learned on this thread I'm truly amazed at the depth of your hypocrisy and I'm struck by the irony of it.
Boston Herald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Boston Herald is a tabloid newspaper, the smaller of the two big dailies in .... The Herald is conservative in its editorial stances, in contrast to the ...
Try quoting this one sometime. Oh wait it doesn't agree with the DNC talking points you keep pushing.
Uhhh yeah. Here's a hint, if it came from the DNC I wouldn't consider it "truth".
You have done more to promote DNC and liberal Boston Globe lies than any other FReeper or Troll I have ever come across. The ironic part is that you claim to be one of the most conservative of the bunch.
You are a CINO. Nya Nyah Nyah
LOL...
Again, when most of that stuff was printed, Romney loved it. It was the message he was trying to get out to his liberal base. But, as always, chickens eventually come home to roost...
You call the stuff “lies,” but have yet to refute a word of it.
I mean, how do you refute a direct quote, anyhow? Are you claiming he didn’t say those things?
Been there done that. I know you'd like to forget our little NRA-ILA discussion where you said the Globe was telling the truth and the NRA was a bunch of idiots. It's been two months now and you haven't conceded your liberal source was wrong about it.
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." - Mitt Romney, after signing permanent "assault weapons" ban
Gary Glenn,
Never did I say in my entry that Romney had only one position shift in his entire political career. I was speaking of the positions articulated in the flyer. That you read into it more than is there is your miscalculation.
Basically, I’m trying to debunk the claims that Romney has switched positions on everything imaginable and that he used to be a full fledged liberal. I think that the flyer helps debunk those claims.
Also, the veiled mistruths in your accusations of Romney position shifts are also enlightening. You say that I’m purposely trying to mislead . . . looks like you’re already a pro at that.
Just picking a few that you mention:
*Gays in Military: Originally (1994) didn’t support “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, but now all the military leaders say that it’s working so he supports it now. Flip flop or learning from experience of over a decade of military experience with a specific policy?
*Romney never said that Gay Marriage “should” be a state issue . . . he stated that it IS/WAS a state regulated issue. More on that one here http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006/12/boston-globes-deception-romney-has-not.html
*NRA—His positions haven’t switched on guns . . . period. Still for a AWB and has a recent B grade from the NRA. “Lifetime member” is the level of membership sign up that he chose. Would you have preferred that he sign up for just one year?
Look, some people seem to think the #1 qualification for becoming our president should be how long you can stay entrenched in your incorrect and failing positions. Romney has learned and “evolved” in a few areas (some of them key areas, most of them very peripheral issues, but all of them show political growth and maturity). But there is far more “amplification” of these issues than is really there. And I think you not only know it Gary . . . you’re complicit in it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall you saying that you would not vote for the Republican ticket if Mitt was in the V.P. slot.
Now, the V.P. has virtually no impact on policy. Therefore, I assume you dislike the man beyond policy or political reasons. Is this true? And what are those reasons?
Funny, but we're nearing the end of two terms by perhaps the most powerful vice-president ever. You guys make some of the silliest assertions.
You mean the Assault Weapon Ban (and Brady bill) that Reagan lobbied for? The AWB Bush supported. Personally, I am for more guns, including assault weapons. However, calling Romney a gross liberal is where you overstep. If he was then Reagan was. In your book everybody is a gross liberal.
Allow me to demonstrate just for the sake of this debate your shoddy tactics, which are talking points directly from the DNC. I ask forgiveness in advance to those who think I may be misrepresenting the great conservative himself RR. I promise I will take a shower after this post having engaged in EV styled slander.
Rameumptom puts EV hat on,
"You do know that I'm a member of the NRA, and my position on the right to bear arms is well known...But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady bill, and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." RR
"Listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of assault weapons.” Letter from R.R.
“As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the right to bear arms, I, too, have carefully thought about this issue. I am convinced that the limitations imposed in this bill are absolutely necessary. I know there is heavy pressure on you to go the other way, but I strongly urge you to join me in supporting this bill. It must be passed.” -- Letter to former Rep. Scott Klug (R-WI), from RR
Oh my goodness RR was a flaming Liberal!!!!!!!!!
EV hat off.
NOT!!!
If Romney is a gross liberal then Reagan was too. In my book neither are.
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.