Posted on 10/28/2008 5:54:24 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
WASHINGTON—A week from today, Americans will pick a new president, but a surprising beneficiary may be off the ballot: Mitt Romney.
With polls in key states forecasting a comfortable victory by Sen. Barack Obama and fellow Democrats, Republicans may find themselves booted out of the White House, shoved further into the minority in Congress and marginalized in the powerhouse of Washington.
If Sen. John McCain loses next Tuesday, Romney could be well positioned to rise as a leader of the Republican Party to guide conservatives through a few years in the political wilderness and a favorite for the GOP presidential nomination come 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
Oh?
How?
Do not post to me again.
Ha ha HA!
But them OTHERS are right ON!
Oh... Kay...
Whew! Smells like teen spirit in here ...
Just vote people.
She?
I think you mean OBAMA!
I said, “Do not post to me again.”
Can you read?
Go post your wonderful thoughts on the religion Board.
I want nothing to do with people like yourself.
I didn’t want to post this, but you chose not to respect my wishes
Sorry, but if you post something I disagree with I will respond to it.
To NOT use your name as the originator would be rude.
Then ignore me.
I said, “Do not post to me again.”
Speaking of rude, go post your rude thoughts on the religion board.
Now, make this the LAST time I have to tell you this.
What irony! You use words like "flip" and "switches" as part of the description of one who didn't know how to stop doing that with issues like pro-life, embryonic stem cells, the homosexual agenda...
Hey, Mitt, this speaking about yourself in the third person has just got to go. (Unless, of course, you're rehearsing now for the SNL skit invites for '012...and we all know SNL has had on characters before who speak of themselves in the third person...and for them, it became a bit endearing).
Oh, great, that's what we need, a Capitalist-in-Chief -- in the hands of sosh pols -- to replace a potential new mold of a distributionist-in-chief...Either way, you get shotgun weddings of where the White House marries Wall Street.
Before this graph, you cite a Willke quote where he spouted MR's oft-cited Every decision...made as governor was on the side of life.
How do you make sense of the following statement Romney made 2 days after his supposed personal anti-abortion, pro-parental consent…favor of a ban on…partial-birth abortion?: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice." (May 27, 2005 press conference).
I mean, "Wow! Spiff, just wow!" Those late-term babies in the womb on May 27, 2005 were glad to hear that stellar "pro-life" conviction from such a stellar "anti-abortion" officeholder!!!
As for the pro-life doc from Cincinnati, this was just a line Willke was fed from the Romney camp. How do we know this "every decision" comment is just tripe? Well, I just quoted you above a statement Romney made in 2005, after he was supposedly more fully “converted” to a pro-life stance. Romney made a “decision” at that press conference to express his commitment to pro-abortion laws. And, he followed thru on that pro-abortion “decision” in April of 2006 when RomneyCare subsidized $50 taxpayer-funded abortions for women above the Medicaid eligibility line; and when Romney completed his 13-year hand-holding tour with Planned Parenthood by not vetoing the section where a PP rep permanently became part of the RomneyCare oversight board. (It's not just that Romney was beholden to a court order to provide abortions for low-income uninsured women; Romney himself said that 1/4th of the women of his state--almost 2% of the population--were uninsured AND were earning $75,000 or more).
Romney took…
… 3 different positions on forcing businesses to hire alternative sexual orientation minorities in 13 years (for it in ’94; against it in ’06; then in late ’97 he decides he’s for it again—only not the feds…he wants the states to implement it;
…three different positions on embryonic stem cell research in 5.5 years--offering a distorted twist last December when he told Katie Couric that a "parent" could either have their frozen embryo "adopted" or they could "donate" him or her to "research" [for dissection]--something perfectly "acceptable" to him...[AND EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HIS GENESIS TO BECOMING 'PRO-LIFE?']...
… abortion weaves that were even worse: Pro-abortion in 1994; didn't wish to be labeled "pro-choice" in 2001; back to his heftiest pro-abortion actions & rhetoric in 2002; pro-life actions in Winter/spring 2005; pro-abortion commitment re-stated on May 27, 2005 sandwiched between pro-life actions; back to aiding & abetting Planned Parenthood & taxpayer subsidized abortions in Spring of 2006. Then a year full of 2007 where he would alternately tell us that he was "effectively pro-choice...the last multiple years" but that he was "always pro-life" (11 days apart). By 2007, he was saying he was "never pro-choice" 'cause he never allowed to call himself "pro-choice."
Whew!!! Come, on, Spiff, pro-lifers – just like Mormons welcoming new Mormon converts -- will settle for two positions (a “before” and “after”). But the weird nuancing he attempted in the ’07 campaign alone – never mind acting like a dog returning to his own vomit in May of ’05 and merging abortion and Planned Parenthood into RomneyCare that makes it quite obvious he could not stick to his “new” position without taking yet a “newer” stance.
Rude thoughts?
Who knew that ASKING for facts was rude?
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.