Posted on 02/09/2008 1:36:43 PM PST by loreldan
Some 50 stalwarts of the political right privately met with Mitt Romney minutes after he dropped out of the Republican nominating race to discuss the former Massachusetts governor becoming the face of conservatism, as Ronald Reagan became en route to his 1980 election win.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
There are always two sides to any political activity—appearances, and actual motivation.
Paul “Tax-on-gas” Tsongas was unelectable, he had cancer in 92 and would not have carried the Democratic nomination regardless of delegate count. It was their year w/ or w/o Slick Willy and they weren’t willing to lose.
Without necessarily having all the facts in hand
$250 for a congressional candidate, even in 1992, was essntially a joke in terms of contributions, and may have been done for access or to keep communication channels open with a representative working on something which Romney had an interest in.
Romney’s business interests had a substantial presence in New York, as well as nationwide, and John LaFalce was on a number of committees whose regulatory oversight affected his business interests. At this time, he was neither Gov. nor Senate candidate, but citizen Romney, and as a private citizen had every right to maintain good relations with persons in power (via campaign contributions) who could either make business go smoothly for them or put their foot on their nuts.
IIRC, Doug Anderson couldn’t get elected dog catcher.. Also its a common practice to contribute to the weakest democrat candidate to give them a shot at the general election to be clobbered by the GOP nominee. Think that doesn’t happen, its a REGULAR practice here in Kentucky, I know that much, I contributed to Bruce Lunsford’s unsuccessful primary campaign last year for Governor (paltry sum, only $50) because i thought he would get clobbered by ANY Republican here in the Gubernatorial race.
But he wasn't perfect and made mistakes, which btw, Reagan himself acknowledged. One of them, was the bill he passed in CA, permitting abortions in limited circumstances, which helped paved the way for Roe vs. Wade, something Reagan also admitted. While it is true that Reagan never supported abortion on demand, it is also true that he changed his opinion on abortion.
While it is true that Romney did support abortion on demand, it is also true that he never passed a bill which expanded a right to abortion. Quite the contrary. He passed several bills intended to narrow the scope.
“$250 for a congressional candidate, even in 1992, was essntially a joke in terms of contributions”
100% of Romney’s support went only to democrats for years, when you couple that with his anti Reagan position and opposition to the Contract with America, and the fact that he was not even a republican, and that he chose all this during the years of our great conservative battles, it means something, we cannot just suspend all common sense.
“true that he changed his opinion on abortion. “
That means you can show me all of the pro abortion quotes, campaign literature, and since he was a nationally known figure, video and at least audio of the pro abortion position that he “changed his opinion on”.
McCain seems to be Bipolar and if so we never know from day to day which side of the isle he is pulling towards!
Exactly!
BTW, I believe the comments I made in #178 were fair and accurate.
BTW, I believe the comments I made in #178 were fair and accurate.
LOL! No we most certainly don’t. : )
3 months ago I did not know anything about Romney.
After observing his campaign this season, I am sold on him as long as he wishes to compete. Now he has the name recognition which he lacked before this contest began. He will be a strong candidate in 2012.
You have got to be kidding. I'm sorry, but I'm truly surprised that words alone and an "R" by one's name is enough to fool so many people. (or maybe it's the good looks and great hair) He is no conservative and never was.
And one of the biggest problems I had with him was his character, so your statement about him being "morals-based" just amazes me. The guy was caught in numerous lies. And the scary part is, the lies seemed to come so easy for him, they just rolled off his tongue. It is almost Clintonesque. His nickname could be Slick Willard.
And what was equally troubling is that the man seemed to have no core principles one way or the other. Typical politician, in that it wasn't about principle but about saying whatever it takes to win a race. Some people bought it, many saw through him like a pane of glass.
I'll ask some questions that I asked someone else on another thread, a couple weeks ago:
Is going back and forth on abortion a "conservative" value? Is going back and forth on the 2nd amendment conservative? Is being a backer of the Brady Bill conservative? Is having a socialistic mandatory health care plan that is endorsed by Ted Kennedy conservative? In regard to judicial appointments, is appointing more Democrats and liberals than Republicans a "conservative" value?
Is being a chameleon and pandering to people only to turn around and betray what makes him "conservative" and "morals-based"? Is lying, stretching the truth and not being principled "morals based"? Is allowing gay marriage to go through "conservative"? Is raising taxes and being for big-government programs a "conservative" value? Is being aligned with the CFR, a globalist group who is pushing for the NAU, a "conservative" value? Is not having served in the miltary and having 5 sons who aren't serving "conservative"? Is that enough, or should I go on?
And lastly, if you don't click on any of those other links... at least click on this one, a little video that I put together.
*gets ready for the tar and feathering* lol
These bluebloods don’t get it. We didn’t “want” Romney anymore than one wants to go to the dentist. It was just that the alternative is worse.
Do you think that McCain is the better candidate?
OMFG, (pardon my abbreviated french JimRob, but I about had a heart attack on that one—had a sense maybe he was but didn’t ever say anything about it and I have watched his political career since I was a proverbial political toddler) but I do not want someone that is bipolar with their finger on the nuclear button. We may need to find out if anyone in the know can dig anything up on this that can be politically useful. Remember, the Rats dumped Thomas Eagleton as the Veep nominee with McGovern when they learned he went through Electroshock therapy. and changing nominee at convention is not without precedent...
To me that's like comparing (to borrow a quote from someone on another thread) syphilis and gonorrhea. I don't like either one, and I would never vote for either one. I think people should vote their conscience. I explained my position in this post, but to sum it up, I won't be voting for McCain if he is the nominee.
What does this mena OMFG?
Thanks for your help in defending Reagan.
Yeah but one of you guys needs to start a Reagan defense ping.
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.