Posted on 01/24/2008 5:17:01 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Debate among the GOP presidential contenders. Live at 9:00pm EST/8:00 CST
MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to gun control. Here's the headline: "Romney retreats on gun control. Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics. In his '94" Senate race, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rife Association and other" guns 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.'" "At another campaign stop" "he told reporters, `I don't line up with the NRA.'" Suddenly Romney decides to run for president and signs up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.GOV. ROMNEY: You know, it's, it's wonderful, and you'll appreciate this. There is a great effort on the part of, in some cases, my opposition, in some cases, just folks that are interested in writing an interesting article to, to try and find any change at all. And my position on guns is the same position I've had for a long, long time. And, and that position is that I don't line up 100 percent with the NRA. I don't see eye to eye with the NRA on every issue. I...
MR. RUSSERT: You're still for the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I...
MR. RUSSERT: You're for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned--and I--let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you're still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let's describe what it is. I signed--I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that's something I would consider signing. There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality...
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn't act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I'd love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms...
MR. RUSSERT: How about the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: The Brady Bill has changed over time, and, of course, technology has changed over time.
MR. RUSSERT: But the idea of a waiting period.
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, we have, we have a background check. That's the key thing. I support background checks to, to--for people who are going into a store or whatever and buying a weapon, I want them to have a background check to make sure...
MR. RUSSERT: But you stand by your support of the Brady Bill.
GOV. ROMNEY: ...to make sure, to make sure that the, that the crazies don't buy guns.
The, the current Brady Bill is, is a different measure than the original. The original had a waiting period because it took a long time to check on people's backgrounds. Today we can check instantly on backgrounds. I don't want to cause a waiting period that's not necessary based upon today's technology. But my position is we should check on the backgrounds of people who are trying to purchase guns. We also should keep weapons of unusual lethality from being on the street. And finally, we should go after people who use guns in the commission of crimes or illegally, but we should not interfere with the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns either for their own personal protection or hunting or any other lawful purpose. I support the work of the NRA. I'm a member of the NRA. But do we line up on every issue? No, we don't.
I highlighted all the places where he tried to answer Russert's questions while Russert kept trying to put words in his mouth. I'll repeat them here all run together:
I supported the assault weapon ban {PAST TENSE}So, as you can clearly see, EVERY statement he made about AWB was about a PAST TENSE support. Russert kept trying to say he STILL supported it, and Romney kept trying to answer by saying he HAD supported it, but saw NO bill now he would support.I would have supported the original assault weapon ban {PAST TENSE}
There's nothing of that nature that's being proposed today in Washington {NO CURRENT SUPPORT FOR A BILL}
Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. {PAST TENSE}
Now that I have provided the actual quotes, do you still argue that Romney said on MTP that he would, IN THE PRESENT, re-authorize the AWB? Because it's not there.
You are so mature... having such a grasp of the events of tonight... and you offer such in depth analysis. Thanks!!
LLS
"Abysmal, wretched, and pathetic are words that come to mind."They scored him the same F- they gave Hillary and Kucinich. At the worst with Romney you get a roll of the dice.
Thanks for your support. Sometimes it’s like viewing the Twilight Zone around here on FR.
that’s probably the term I was looking for - street smart. It’s something conservatives usually are (can figure out how to work, make money, start businesses, be self-motivated and see the big picture), while libs wait around for the government to give them a job.
I’m here... anytime.
BTW, in that previous post of mine, you can search for the word “YES” that you say Romney used to answer the question — you will not find it. Romney NEVER SAID YES to Russert in that exchange.
That’s why I urged you to go back and read the transcript, because you were mis-remembering it and using that mis-remembering to say things that weren’t correct.
I’m not here to hide Romney’s record. I support him BECAUSE of his record, and in some cases in SPITE OF his record, but I WANT his record to be debated openly and honestly.
What I DON’T want is people to be debating a FALSE record made up through incorrect statements and misleading presentations.
If McCain is in the general, many many conservative voters won’t vote for him, IMO. He’s been in bed too often with the Dems and has voted too many times like a Dem. He’ll lose the Republican base, giving the Dem candidate a huge edge. IMHO, that is.
I’m one of them. I will not vote for McCain under any circumstances.
McCain's strength in the general is a myth. If he was truly a formidable GOP candidate, the MSM would be attacking, not coddling him.
The MSM's benign treatment of McCain is what has lifted him to this lofty height.
As McCain becomes the presumptive nominee, the MSM will turn on him. Having no support from the conservatives, there will be nothing to break his fall.
MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus. And so both the pro-gun and the anti-gun lobby came together with a bill, and I signed that. And if there is determined to be, from time to time, a weapon of such lethality that it poses a grave risk to our law enforcement personnel, that’s something I would consider signing. There’s nothing of that nature that’s being proposed today in Washington. But, but I would, I would look at weapons that pose extraordinary lethality…
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support? GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I. And, and, and yet I also was pleased to have the support of the NRA when I ran for governor. I sought it, I seek it now. I’d love to have their support. I believe in the right of Americans to bear arms…
LLS
LOL! I was disregarding the Ron Paul nutcases. He gets a huge majority in the online polls but just a few percent when the mass of voters decide. It’s easy enough to figure out.
I know Mitt and have spent time with him on issues of interest to the majority on this board. He is clearly the most intelligent politician I have ever met (including Newt). His answers are clear and thoughtful. While not all his positions would suit every member of this board, he is clearly the most compatible at this time.
Yes, he was born into an accomplished family (is there something wrong with that?), but he accomplish a great deal on his own, at Bain, in charitable efforts, and as Governor under very difficult circumstances.
He has a high energy level, physically and mentally. He runs 5 miles 3-4 times a week even on the campaign trail and his fitness level is obvious.
He lives a moral life of values. All the remaining contenders have potential skeletons from their past.
He attracts good people around him and he has very high standards for their performance. A president gets to appoint 31 positions. It matters who he appoints. We do not need Keriks.
He is a good campaigner. No one will work harder or smarter to defeat Hillary.
He is disliked and feared the most by the democrats and MSM.
I have voted in 11 presidential elections and have never felt better about voting for someone as I do voting for Mitt.
I am not associated with him in any way other than having up close knowledge of him.
If you say so.
I honestly preferred the recent ABC Presidential debate where everyone sat at a table, and there was no time limits to what was being discussed on a variety of issues. I was expecting Fox to successfully carry out such a well run debate format, and not ABC. This latest MSNBC debate format returned again to the time limit format, and this created the limited “soundbites” yet again from all of the GOP Presidential candidates on all of the issues brought up instead of anything of decent substantial quality on all of the issues that were brought up by the “leftist” reporters.
Educated, but not wise. Wisdom is a gift from the Lord, and is given to those who seek Him.
LLS
Is George Bush running?
Right now, we have 5 guys on stage, after the 5th, things will be crystal clear, and our Candidate has to stand out from Hilde the Harpy, and they have to be able to sling mud better.
The Clintonistas are past masters at attacking, we need someone just as accomplished at making them, in the words of Lee Atwater “If your explaining, then you are losing...”
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.