Posted on 01/15/2008 6:00:23 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
Brit Hume just called it.
>> The words “no dignity, no class, and no couth” are reverberating around the McCain camp tonight. <<
McCain stepped on Huckabee’s concession speech.
>> The words “no dignity, no class, and no couth” are reverberating around the McCain camp tonight. <<
... although I’ll agree that I almost always associate “no dignity, no class and no couth (sic)” with the McCain camp.
No, it’s photoshopped. And a bad one. Does that look much like a star to you? And notice the inside of the C is crooked. And that the source is photobucket.
One thing is for certain, Fred is not going to be the Republican nominee. I hope that all of the Fred Heads will have sense enough to support a winner in November.
Wouldn’t make that assumption quite yet...that’s why I’m hoping SC surprises me and swats McCain aside. Would be nice if he suffered a double whammy loss in NV and SC and lost in FL.
“The base will not support a RINO like Romney.” The “base” supported Mitt in MI for one. In WY as well. You need to read/listen to a little Goldwater with your pre-1964 thinking. He expressly warned against this nonsense.
Interesting post. - I like that comparision between Romney and Rockefeller.
Romnefeller
I was a little slow to sign on here and to turn on Laura’s show. Missed Mitt but she’s interviewing someone else re Romney now. I also caught Mitt on the CBS Early Show.
I am not the source of that photo.... I was just pointing it out, and just noticed it 2 nights ago, that photo has been on FR for a month or 2.
“But hey, when we began supporting Mitt Romney last January, we were told he wouldn’t achieve the success he has already. The naysayers like yourself have already been proven wrong, and it is only the beginning of a long journey where Mitt will prove you wrong at many turns along the way, culminating with his nomination as the GOP candidate for the presidency, and his victory over Hillary for the White House. : )”
Your cocky pride reminds me of the Rooty Tooters here a few months ago. They claimed that Rudy was going to rule the world. Now it’s, Rudy??? Who’s that? You fliparoos are getting full of yourselves just like the Rooty Tooters. Perhaps you might want to go over to WAnker world and join them. In the mean time, let’s keep things real, shall we...
Posted by JR recently on another thread:
Well, it’s not just that Romney was for abortion before he was against it, or that under his watch and nanny state socialist legislation that he pushed under Ted Kennedy’s approving tutelage, Massachusetts now has Planned Parenhood $50 abortions on demand and also, as I understand, is the only state in the union that has actually enacted gay marriage, he has RINO history. But the buck doesn’t stop with Slick Willard.
Selected quotes:
Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: “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.”
- Boston Globe, March 2, 2006
“I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.”
-2002 Questionnaire for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)
Boston Globe, July 3, 2005
“Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures.”
- National Review Online, February 11, 2005
“At a campaign appearance at Brandeis University in June 2002, Romney strongly endorsed stem cell research.”
- Boston Globe, December 17, 2006
“When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?’ “
- Boston Globe, July 7, 2005
“All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.”
- Romney’s 2002 campaign website
“Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference”
- A flier handed out at “Gay Pride” by the Romney/Healey Campaign
“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and a bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns [grammar in context] President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share…”
- Governor Romney letter to Log Cabin Republicans, October 6, 1994
In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004
“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
- Boston Globe, January 14, 2007
Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”
- Boston Herald, August 1, 1994
In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as “quite different” from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.
“That’s very different than amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay,’ “ Romney said in the interview. “It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”
Romney did not specifically endorse McCain’s bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation’s immigration crisis, calling them “reasonable proposals.”
Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,” he said. “In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.”
- Boston Globe, March 16, 2007
“Governor Romney…imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax ‘loophole’ closures….The largest of these was $259 million worth of fee hikes in FY 2004, the bulk of which came from higher Registry of Deeds fees. Smaller fee hikes, including higher charges for boaters and golfers, we imposed in FY 2003 and FY 2005. Romney also sought $128 million worth of so-called tax loophole closures for FY 2004; $70 million for FY 2005; and $170 million for FY 2006, which were later reduced to $85 million due to backlash from business leaders.”
- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney
Romney didn’t support President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003. That earned him praise from liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA)
- Boston Globe, April 11, 2003.
Governor Romney has changed his position on key campaign finance reform issues several times during public life. During his 1994 Senate campaign, he held far left positions that advocated for abolishing PACs and creating strict campaign spending limits.
- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney’s position on political free speech has undergone a radical evolution. During his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney took an outrageous position on campaign finance reform that put him to the left of the current McCain-Feingold legislation, arguing for campaign spending limits-unconstitutional even under Buckley v. Valeo-and the abolition of PACs:
“I personally believe that when campaigns spend the kind of money they’re now spending...and to get that kind of money you’ve gotta cozy up as an incumbent to all of the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members, and that kind of relationship has an influence over the way you’re going to vote...And for that reason I would like to have campaign spending limits and to say we’re not going to spend more than this in certain campaigns...I also would abolish PACS. You probably have one. I don’t like them. I don’t like the influence of money-whether it’s business, labor, or any other group. I do not like that kind of influence...”
In his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney proposed a radical new campaign finance system, in which privately-funded campaigns would be taxed 10% in order to fund publicly-funded campaigns as part of Massachusetts’ Clean Election Law in order to “spare taxpayers the burden of shouldering the entire expense of this program.” In 2003, he allowed a repeal of the Clean Elections Law to stand.
- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney
394 posted on 01/09/2008 10:22:38 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Good morning, Resty and Reaganesque.
The networks this morning were saying that Romney FINALLY won after losing two primaries. That was the spiel.
On to South Carolina, but I also think Nevada loves a winner. And I think he will win hearts and minds in the West. We welcome him and look forward to his appearances here. HINT, HINT...:)
Appreciate what you say DoughtyOne; and share your dissatisfaction here - and I am not 'touting' Bush. It remains, however; IMHO; that it is 'America-defeating' and more than pound foolish at this point to look at U.S.A. as glass 'half empty' versus 'half full'.
And still, I maintain, not having another 9/11 IS reason enough for us to appreciate - by whichever measure - that GW was at the helm - and NOT Al Gore; or ANY Demrat. Our enfranchised Military, another reason; and economic issues notwithstanding; we can still appreciate the economic growth that has unfolded since 9/11.
And yes, of course, it could happen again - at any time; but would hold every frickin, enemy-empowering Demrat responsible FIRST; not second, here. It is they who have unequivocally facilitated our enemies, by their Leftist ideological commitment.
NO question in my mind; we have been riding on 'more than a prayer' with GW at the helm; and at least there remains a chance FOR a prayer in our future; with a Repub or even Rino at the helm. Zilch. . .zero; nada; with 'otherwise' Leadership.
Would offer/acknowledge as well; not counting invisible hands' while it only took 'nineteen'on 9/11, that fewer could accomplish this task today. And given the numbers of Muslims who carry the jihadist within, who are either new arrivals or who are, already, American citizens, we do not have the luxury of entertaining thoughts of unrealistic - if not inpossible- safety margins protecting us here at home.
Am convinced in addition; that the Patriot Act, in no small measure, has been a hindrance to open Jihad in America; and we have a Repub to thank for that.
Oh, that GW had a more 'jaundiced eye'; or be less inclined to 'turn his cheek' here. But he has drawn more than a few boundaries and margins of safe protocol.) No need here to count the PC Liberal-appeasement and Liberal PC 'window dressing'.
We do have a Liberal stranglehold in Country; our Government-at-large that GW should have dissueded; dismantled or disengaged. Our surrender as well, to Liberal coercion by Political Correctness puts our entire Country at risk. . .and our future. Wish Bush had tackled this one; but of course, this is not a job entirely, for the President. It is our job as well.
We do not live in a perfect world; but 'our world' is more perfect than it would be; had an anti-America/anti-freedom; enemy-appeasing/enemy-loving; military-hating; U.N. advocating - anti-Capitalist; and anti-Faith/anti-religious, pro-global-warming/pro-Green, collectivist Demrat - been leading our nation.
And as we move into the future; while begruding degrees of Conservatism or Repulicanism; the very chance; hint or idea of ANY of your prescriptions, DoughtyOne; seeing the light of day, altogether, vanishes.
The lesson should be; that we vote ALL the 'rats', out of our Congress; get them out of our State Department; out of our CIA; our schools. . .Churches et al.
Facilitating the upside of the Leftist 'Democrat' Party is inviting absolute 'self-defeat' for our Country. We have had fair warning; and there can be little doubt that too late smart, is just that.
(As for Liberal Supreme Justices thanking a Repub President for their advancement; can only say that was THEN; this is NOW. The ideological battle for the soul of America was not so clearly defined. . .save by the 'we' - great Americans versus the 'they' - evil communist, notations. There should be no question, where the lines are drawn today. And there can be no excuses.)
Frankly, I'm sick of the term RINO. It has come to be utterly meaningless. Name-calling is the sign of a lazy electorate. If the nominee is not conservative enough for you, then your advocacy group needs to work on him, his platform and his agenda.
Right now, as conservative Republicans, we are working at keeping McCain and Huckabee away from the nomination. Why? Because Huck is a tax-raiser, clueless re foreign policy and advocates installing a theocratic government. Because McCain has too long collaborated with the Democrat enemy, on CFR, illegal immigration and leniency for terrorists. He would take the GOP more to the left than anything you have seen yet.
Which candidate do you support?
“A good family foundation is a plus for a strong leader in the New World!”
Sure, but it has little relation to public ethics and honesty.
Many of the world’s most crooked leaders have also had very good marraiges.
Romnefeller
Absolutely. Romney is trying to hijack the legacy of Reagan, just as Bush I did.
Unfortunately, it appears to be working.
Feeling vindicated and good about some victory, is cocky pride??? WOW!
Given the negative way some people like to spin, I shouldn't be surprised by your comment. : ) Have a nice day!
I agree with your tagline!
It is the most overused term on this board.
Outstanding analysis. Grudges are never the way forward, and wailing victimhood is not a conservative trait.
The Democrats have gone off the cliff and want to bring the rest of the country with them. They must be resisted, defeated, etc., to keep this country on solid high ground. It’s our patriotic duty.
Me too! : )
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.