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!
EV has stated in the past that Mitt Romney was just as bad as Stalin and Hitler. Is that rational and reasonable?
Why don’t you link that, nowandlater.
Cool hats!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1779896/posts?page=16
To: EternalVigilance
Ok, what level of Evil is he historically comparable to?
Ranging from the most vile to least vile match Mitt to someone comparable: The Devil himself, Hitler, Ghengis Kahn, Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer, David Duke, Richard Nixon, James Buchanan, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Roseanne Barr, Miss America - Tara Connor, Rosie O’Donnel, or Donald Trump.
17 posted on 02/05/2007 10:18:08 PM PST by nowandlater (Brownback and Huckabee for Pastor of the United States...er...President...2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: nowandlater; All
Let me guess...You probably rate him between David Duke and Richard Nixon, right?
18 posted on 02/05/2007 10:21:27 PM PST by nowandlater (Brownback and Huckabee for Pastor of the United States...er...President...2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
To: nowandlater
Ok, what level of Evil is he historically comparable to?
Well, let’s see...hmmm...by his own admission, he supported abortion even BEFORE Roe v. Wade.
That makes him complicit in the butchery of about 50 million American citizens.
I’d say that puts him in the same league as any murdering tyrant in history.
19 posted on 02/05/2007 10:24:40 PM PST by EternalVigilance (With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Do you disagree?
Another 3-4000 were butchered today....
Really. Answer the question. As a political person, and an elected official, who for over 35 years publically advocated for abortion on demand, does he bear culpability for that?
Judges bear responsibility. He held no office. When he was in office he helped promote pro-life policies (see below). To equate him with a Stalin or Hitler is crazy.
He vetoed a bill to give kids access to emergency contraception without parents’ knowledge
He promised a “moratorium” on changes to abortion laws in his 2002 gubernatorial run
He opposes Roe v. Wade and thinks states should set abortion policy
He opposes cloning of human embryos for stem cell research—even though his wife has multiple sclerosis
He vetoed a bill to expand such research despite the overwhelmingly hostile liberal majority in his state legislature
What a load of hooey.
Everyone with a brain knows that he fought to keep abortion going for decades. And now you completely absolve him of any responsibility for that. How convenient.
That would be like at the end of WWII, Hitler saying, “Whoops, I was wrong...but, you know, I’ve always been personally prolife...make me a rabbi, will ya?”
Lol, sure a Man who gets beat by Ted Kennedy is culpable. What nonsense! If he was elected in 1994, Mitt would have given Pro-life nominees a fair shake! I think it is crazy to extrapolate what could have been, if it has never happened. I look at his results and they are a definite net positive. To say he is the equivalent of a Hitler or a Stalin is crazy.
Even William Wilberforce had to concede politically to win his issues. But I don’t call him a dictator because of that.
Explain to me the moral difference between 50 million American children mutilated and murdered in the womb and 50 million dead Europeans due to Hitler’s and Stalin’s depredations.
Oh really? So, you're saying Mitt was lying?
You’re talking as if Mitt Romney’s policies and political advocacy have no ramifications in the real world. It’s a silly assertion.
He didn’t hold office. When he did hold office he vetoed bad legislation.
Now, if he did held office and was passing bad law then I would hold him much more responsible.
Keep digging EV . . . this is getting pretty entertaining.
You’ve also previously said:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1754669/posts?page=67#67
“Romney didn’t take any stand against the court’s ruling on same sex marriage.”
To which I responded with this http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1754669/posts?page=105#105
(and you didn’t respond back . . . I wonder why)
If you’re willing to spread this many lies and contorted logic this blatantly and frequently then your credibility (if you have any left) is lost.
More BS. Romney didn't take any stand against the court's ruling on same sex marriage. In fact, he defied the law and used his executive power to coerce all of the state's justices of the peace into performing same sex ceremonies.
More proof that Mitt Romney is a complete fraud.
Still explicitly true.
Say that into a mirror, and you'll be addressing the right audience.
Jeff, don’t you have a conscience? Aren’t you the least bit embarrassed to repeatedly make statements so easily proven false? Or after all this time, are you simply ignorant of your own candidate’s record?
Fish in a barrel...
You falsely claim: “Gays in Military: (Romney) 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.”
In 1994, in a letter to the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans who twice endorsed his campaigns, Romney not only endorsed DADT but called it merely “the first in a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays’ and lesbians’ being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” (See PDF of full letter: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/RomneyLogCabinLetter.pdf
“(Romney) once embraced the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy as just a first step toward openly gay people in the military. Now, he says the policy should not be changed in a time of war.” Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-romney1feb01,1,378412.story
“Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R), who once advocated allowing gays to serve openly in the military, said yesterday that he does not think the Pentagon should change its ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy in the midst of the Iraq war.” Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/18/AR2007021801218_pf.html
Notice that in all cases, Romney says DADT shouldn’t be changed “at this time”...”in a time of war”...”right now.” Seems to be signaling as clearly as possible that at a different time, not at war, he would support — once again — forcing American military personnel to share showers, foxholes, and close living quarters with individuals openly involved in homosexual behavior.
And while we’re at it, Romney was the only Republican candidate for president to publicly criticize Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Pace for saying homosexual behavior is “immoral.”
*Romney never said that Gay Marriage “should” be a state issue...he stated that it IS/WAS a state regulated issue.”
As a candidate for federal office in 1994, in what was obviously a dodge to avoid answering the question of how he as a U.S. senator would vote on the issue, Romney tap-danced by saying “the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction,” obviously suggesting that as a federal candidate, he should not be expected to respond. This time, once again a candidate for federal office, he says he believes it should be a federal issue. (Funny, Mitt thinks protecting marriage should be constitutionally protected at the federal level, but he thinks the right of a prenatal child to be born in the first place should not be constitutionally protected.) In 2002, as a candidate for governor, Romney opposed the proposed marriage amendment to his state’s constitution; now, of course, he supports it.
For a change, Jeff truthfully writes: “NRA—His positions haven’t switched on guns...period.”
Correct. Mitt still endorses the Assault Weapons Ban and unless there’s been a flip-flop I haven’t heard about, the Brady Bill.
What has flip-flopped is his transparent posturing, from dissing and criticizing the NRA — “That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA.”...”I don’t line up with the NRA.” — to now professing that he’s so strongly supportive of NRA that he’s a “life member.”
Which was clearly yet another Clintonesque-Romneyesque attempt to deceive people into believing he’d long been a supporter of NRA...a deception quickly exposed when it was uncovered and reported that he’d only paid the $500 to become a “life” member last August. Congenitally unable to avoid such deceptive devices, Mitt later claimed to be a “life-long hunter” too, only to be caught red-faced on that one as well.
Care to put more fish in the barrel, Jeff? I was an “expert” marksman in the Army Guard and Reserves.
An addendum, Jeff. I was endorsed by NRA every time I ran for public office.
And was humbled beyond measure by Charlton Heston’s TV ad on my behalf:
“I’ve worked with Gary before to defend our freedoms. He tells the truth, and he fights for it.”
So said Moses...
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.
