Posted on 01/31/2008 10:37:41 AM PST by Delacon
“Should Romney run as an Independent if McSnake snakes the nomination out from under him with lies and dirty politics?”
Romney should RUN back to the liberal sewer he crawled out of!
If Romney was a democrat, the act of associating with Democrats would cast doubt on his adherance to republican party principles.
And if he was a “D”, he wouldn’t be running for President on that platform. The platform isn’t just lip service to a few more conservative ideas, it’s a littany of what conservatives claim to stand for and want. Not perfect, but solid.
As I told someone who tried to defend Leiberman on the war — yes, Leiberman is good on the war. But in the end, I don’t “credit” him for it, because first he is no better on the war than EVERY democrat AND republican SHOULD be, and I don’t credit people much for just doing the right thing.
And second, he voted for Harry Reid, who is the person responsible for hurting our troops. Lieberman, by voting a “D”, shows he is more committed to that party than to the troops he is defending. He defends them, but not as much as his vote WOULD allow.
As an independent, he has no “party loyalty” to honor, and yet he honors it anyway.
So given that the “D” party rejects everything Romney stands for and is running on, if he had a “D” by his name, if he was willing to associate with that party, it would cast doubt on the sincerity of his positions.
But he is associating with our party, and has done so in the past, and in fact even in his moderate days he was a good republican on most of the issues, being a liberal on a few social conservative positions of great importance to us but of limited meaning in the context of the races he was running.
Here’s something to think about. In 1994, Romney ran “pro-choice”. He did so in 2002. But when he had to actually DO something related to that position, he thought about it and changed his position.
Fred Thompson ran as effectively pro-choice in 1994. He was seen as pro-life by those who cared, but he spoke of allowing women to make their own decisions, keeping government out of the decision, that abortion was OK until viability — things that would make him pretty pro-choice today.
But when he had to make a decision about it, to actually think, he voted pro-life.
What if Romney had won election in 1994, and had joined Thompson in the Senate? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that Romney, like Thompson, when confronted with the decision to make, would have voted for life, as he did when it mattered in Mass? Then we would have had one more pro-life vote in the Senate in place of Ted Kennedy, and Romney would be a natural selection for President today.
Well, that’s my take as well. And BTW, take this in the light it was intended, I think you misspelled Myth.
Where oh where is Fred when you need him.
Thanks for your additional comments Charles. Take care.
The marriage license form change was part of the implementation of the court order that the Mass marriage law should be read as “person 1 and person 2”, rather than “man and woman”.
I suppose one could argue that, even though the court required the state to marry same-sex couples, we should still stick it to them by making one of them identify themselves as the “wife”, but that’s rather childish.
However, if I had been in charge, I would have offered two forms, so those who wanted could use “husband and wife”.
Of course, for all I know that’s how it really is, because without a link I don’t know what the truth is.
Oh, time for the conspiracy theorists to rear their heads.
Why not, most of the arguments against Romney are about the level of a DU profanity-fest without the profanity, so why not bring in the 9/11-truther style of debate.
It’s like “Halliburton-Cheney” only by the right.
BTW, in case you really believe something you said, yes, when you sell your company, you no longer dictate what it does. Have you ever sold a house? Do you go back to it once in a while and tell the owners what color to paint the rooms?
Yeah right. Did the legislation pass? No. It was intended CYA for McCain. I trust McCain as much to protect us from the fairness doctrine as I trust him to protect us from illegal immigrants. And Medved has been a McCain cheerleader for quite some time.
Romney is dangerous, he has no back bone. His hair dye is fantastic though, I would say fabulous for that matter. The way he keeps that touch of gray on the sides to make me think he is just now at 60 turning Grey.
This of course is just like his positions. He is just now becoming the candidate that the conservatives have only dreamed about. In fact in the next few months he will be so fined tuned that there will be claims that he is Ronald Reagen (who also had a great hair dye)
And many will be posting this drivel right here on the Free Republic.
Romney is Reagan !
Charles, up the thread I posted a link to an article that made it clear to me that Romney took actions the court declared it had no power to demand.
It more or less becomes pointless to discuss these matters if folks dismiss the things we do link.
You are moved to support Romney. I am not, and won’t.
You take care. I honestly don’t have any more time to address this right now.
I believe that if one of these two wins, you will see the day in photos and pray for threads just like you have for the last eight years.
That’s just the way it goes... We must back our figurehead even if he implements Hillary’s pipe dreams.
You take care. I have some other things I need to get to this afternoon.
There is nothing wrong with conservatism. But, obviously, we need new messengers. The "conservative" pundits have proven that they will liar and manipulate just to help the Republican party.
I agree Sparky.
manapua: The discussion within the movement ought to be about post-2008 politics and where we ought to go. Because no matter which party wins the Presidency, conservatism has lost a major battle. And sadly, many intellectual and grassroots leaders are damaging themselves with this odd shilling for Romney.Spot on comments. Our country's on a ship called the Titanic...and it is going full speed ahead thanks to the help of those who claim to be conservatives.Antoninus: Mitt Romney is a liberal con-artist and will govern as such. No conservative should willingly help put such a politician in office.
I know it intimately; I am registered DTS up here in Concord.
Assuming that now you are using RINO to mean liberals and moderates, if they all switched to the Democratic party they would be voting for Democrats instead of republicans and we would have very few people in the house or senate.
We don’t need liberal candidates, but we DO need moderates and even some liberals to be willing to vote for republicans they don’t agree with.
Those who think we win by pushing people to vote for democrats are not thinking clearly.
And I am sick of people acting like his record and past positions don’t matter but every other candidates do.
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.