THE VEEPSTAKES: THERE IS AN OBVIOUS LOSER
[NOTE: GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]
Uberpundit Fred Barnes, of Fox News and Weekly Standard fame has plunged head-first into the Mitt Romney for Vice President campaign.
Barnes, apparently writing directly from the talking points paid for by Willard Mitt Romney (a/k/a the Gucci Chameleon, "Mitt-the-Flip," Bishop Mitt, the Vain Bain Capitalist, "Flipper Mitty," "Slick Willard" and that "guy who made hundreds of millions by outsourcing your job to China"), claims that Romney is the "obvious winner" as McCain's choice for Number Two.
R-i-g-h-t.
And New York Governor Elliot "Mess" Spitzer is a committed monogamist who'd never pay a floozie $5,000-an-hour for some nookie . . . .
Barnes' "analysis" (e.g. Romney commercial) ranks about as credible as Bill Clinton's infamous claim that he "didn't inhale."
Fred appears to be inhaling something (perhaps the sweet smell of beau-coup Greenbacks from Mitt's unlimited bankroll . . . or maybe the same stuff that Professor Benny Shanon was apparently on when he claimed Moses hopped-up on psychedelics at Mount Sinai)
[Of course Fred is probably just parroting the News Corporation company line as a dutiful employee]
Selecting Mitt Romney as vice president is a sure-fire way to torpedo John McCain's chances in November.
Just punch the "Mitt Romney" link below on this website for more about Romney's Mormon Tabernacle-sized list of political defects.
But here's the "Executive Summary" for those otherwise occupied at the "19th hole."
"Pit-Bull-Mitt" is a flip-flopping political novice who used his huge personal fortune to attack fellow Republicans.
"Bishop Mitt" overwhelmingly alienates at least 1/3 of the GOP base.
"Mitt-the-Flip" lost in many of the Red States where the GOP must win. (Romney didn't win any place that McCain was uncompetitive so he adds virtually no regional balance to the ticket.
"Slick Willard" stands for almost nothing solid (he's grossly flip-flopped on nearly every issue important to social conservatives).
The Vain Bain Capitalist also is the perfectly-coifed poster child for almost every negative stereotype the electorate holds about the GOP.
If Five hundred million dollars worth of free media from Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and a host of other GOP "attack radio" stars couldn't sell "Mitty" to the GOP base (who were primed and ready for SOMEONE to rescue the GOP in 2008), why does Fred Barnes believe that Romney would sell any better among the more moderate (and more skeptical) general electorate?
Mitt as Veep would be a disaster (and a guarantee that this card-carrying Republican wouldn't even put a McCain-Romney sticker on the old Powered-By-Ford SpeedWagon . . .)
Central to the Romney-ian argument for the "superiority" of Slick Willard as Veep is the claim that he's been anointed by Karl Rove and George W. Bush.
Rove, of course, has been an in-the-tank Romney-ian for months. And , given the obvious fact that Rove and Bush have lead the GOP nearly to the abyss (including with sterling picks such as Donald Rumsfeld and Bush's gross negligence in not using the veto pen to stop profligate spending while the GOP still had control of Congress), it's hardly a ringing endorsement of their collective wisdom in selecting personnel or sensing the direction of the political waters.
But Rove and Bush pushing the Gucci Chameleon is certainly a fact that will make for a nice Democrat attack ad in the fall.
Mitt Romney is only the "obvious" winner of the Veepstakes if the GOP has a death wish in November.
[NOTE: GET THE LATEST "TRUTH WITH SPEEDZZTER" HERE]
Uberpundit Fred Barnes, of Fox News and Weekly Standard fame has plunged head-first into the Mitt Romney for Vice President campaign.
Barnes, apparently writing directly from the talking points paid for by Willard Mitt Romney (a/k/a the Gucci Chameleon, "Mitt-the-Flip," Bishop Mitt, the Vain Bain Capitalist, "Flipper Mitty," "Slick Willard" and that "guy who made hundreds of millions by outsourcing your job to China"), claims that Romney is the "obvious winner" as McCain's choice for Number Two.
R-i-g-h-t.
And New York Governor Elliot "Mess" Spitzer is a committed monogamist who'd never pay a floozie $5,000-an-hour for some nookie . . . .
Barnes' "analysis" (e.g. Romney commercial) ranks about as credible as Bill Clinton's infamous claim that he "didn't inhale."
Fred appears to be inhaling something (perhaps the sweet smell of beau-coup Greenbacks from Mitt's unlimited bankroll . . . or maybe the same stuff that Professor Benny Shanon was apparently on when he claimed Moses hopped-up on psychedelics at Mount Sinai)
[Of course Fred is probably just parroting the News Corporation company line as a dutiful employee]
Selecting Mitt Romney as vice president is a sure-fire way to torpedo John McCain's chances in November.
Just punch the "Mitt Romney" link below on this website for more about Romney's Mormon Tabernacle-sized list of political defects.
But here's the "Executive Summary" for those otherwise occupied at the "19th hole."
"Pit-Bull-Mitt" is a flip-flopping political novice who used his huge personal fortune to attack fellow Republicans.
"Bishop Mitt" overwhelmingly alienates at least 1/3 of the GOP base.
"Mitt-the-Flip" lost in many of the Red States where the GOP must win. (Romney didn't win any place that McCain was uncompetitive so he adds virtually no regional balance to the ticket.
"Slick Willard" stands for almost nothing solid (he's grossly flip-flopped on nearly every issue important to social conservatives).
The Vain Bain Capitalist also is the perfectly-coifed poster child for almost every negative stereotype the electorate holds about the GOP.
If Five hundred million dollars worth of free media from Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and a host of other GOP "attack radio" stars couldn't sell "Mitty" to the GOP base (who were primed and ready for SOMEONE to rescue the GOP in 2008), why does Fred Barnes believe that Romney would sell any better among the more moderate (and more skeptical) general electorate?
Mitt as Veep would be a disaster (and a guarantee that this card-carrying Republican wouldn't even put a McCain-Romney sticker on the old Powered-By-Ford SpeedWagon . . .)
Central to the Romney-ian argument for the "superiority" of Slick Willard as Veep is the claim that he's been anointed by Karl Rove and George W. Bush.
Rove, of course, has been an in-the-tank Romney-ian for months. And , given the obvious fact that Rove and Bush have lead the GOP nearly to the abyss (including with sterling picks such as Donald Rumsfeld and Bush's gross negligence in not using the veto pen to stop profligate spending while the GOP still had control of Congress), it's hardly a ringing endorsement of their collective wisdom in selecting personnel or sensing the direction of the political waters.
But Rove and Bush pushing the Gucci Chameleon is certainly a fact that will make for a nice Democrat attack ad in the fall.
Mitt Romney is only the "obvious" winner of the Veepstakes if the GOP has a death wish in November.
Labels: Fred Barnes, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rush Limbaugh
posted by Editor at 07:12
30 Comments:
"Blistering rebuttal"? LOL. Talk about delusions of grandeur! You simply have nothing left but to engage in name calling and religious bigotry. Where is the insighful analysis of strenths and weaknessess of Romney or other candidates? Surely you have more than the usual chant that The Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox, Peggy Noonan, Rick Santorum, Hugh Hewitt, Krauthammer, Sean, Club for Growth, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush, etc. have been bought off by Romney. Please tell me you have meaningful insight and analysis to provide? No?
Well, here are the facts. Despite however painful you find this, Romney was the clear choice among conservatives (established by the exit polling)except for a segment of the evangelical community. Unfortunately, that number (for example Huckabee's 14% in Flordia compared to Romney's 31% and McCain's 35%) was just enough to ensure a McCain victory. Conversely, we now know that Huckabee, as the only alleged conservative in a two man race against McCain got killed! In that two-man race, McCain won 288 delegates to Huckabee's 28!!
As a Romney supporter, I think Romney certainly helps with conservatives, however, I frankly think there may be better candidates to help McCain in the general. But, isn't it time to stop the name calling? You will have a hard time finding Romney blogs that contain smears against Huckabee (but we ceratinly respond!) Is this really the type of voter that Huckabee attracts? Sad. I guess by their fruits you know them, right?
Wow, Bags' argument is that because Romney did better than Huckabee in New York South (Florida) after spending about ten times the amount McCain and Huckabee did combined then he's the real conservative choice? How could those voters in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas and elsewhere have missed that?
While it's true that McCain had such a prohibitive lead and GOP establishment momentum by the time it became a three-man race (don't forget Ron Paul, Bags) that Huckabee couldn't overcome all of the headwinds against him, it's foolhearty to claim that Romney would have done much better
And if "The Weekly Standard, National Review, Fox, Peggy Noonan, Rick Santorum, Hugh Hewitt, Krauthammer, Sean, Club for Growth, Karl Rove, Jeb Bush,et al. are infallible, why do we bother having elections in the first place. We could just have all of those elites caucus at in some cigar-smoke-filled New York penthouse and have them tell us, like sheep, who we should vote for.
As for the silly bigotry charge, where was it that Romney won 9-of-10 votes . . . . Could it be the Beehive State? No anti-Evangelical behavior there?
My post was not written to argue that Romney SHOULD be the "real conservative" choice. Don't need to. Primary election is over. The exit polls established that Romney was most often the choice of those identified as conservative republicans. Try and spin it however you want but, however painful it is for you folks, those are the facts.
As to performance, despite having all of the benefit of the protest "anyone but McCain " vote, Huckabee was barely even considered to be a serious candidate. McCain didn't even have to debate him. After Romney dropped out, everyone (except Huckabee)knew it was over. You are kidding yourself if you don't think Romney was a more serious challenger than Huckabee. McCain was NOT worried about Huckabee!
Finally, I have no desire to try and argue with you folks about who the "better' conservative is. The comment was directed to Speedo's utterly useless name calling article. What a waste of time. No doubt you found the article really insightful political analysis of the VP candidates. Correct?
It seems this post is a lot more than name calling. "Speedo" alleged that:
1. Mitt violated Reagan's 11th Comandment.
2. Mitt alienates 1/3 of the GOP base.
3. Mitt flip-flopped on many issues important to social conservatives.
4. Mitt is a stereotypical big business, country club Republican
5. Mitt is a "novice" who makes lots of mistakes on the campaign trail (he's not very "hip," interesting or entertaining, either).
6. Most of Mitt's votes and delegates came a huge cost.
7. Mitt lost most of the Southern States that the GOP "must win."
8. Mitt adds no regional balance because he wins in the same Western and "blue states" where McCain is already competitive.
9. If Mitt couldn't "seal the marriage" with ardent conservatives in the primary, he's not going to broaden his appeal in the general election.
That looks like a lot of substantive criticism to me.
But we were told that the Huckster wasn't running for VP! He is in it to win! His followers claimed.
Barnes is right on target. Conservatives are already not happy with McCain, adding Shuckabee would mean a certain loss.
I will not vote for McCain under any circumstances. The only way I can see him as less appealing than he is would be if he were to choose the other loser from Hope, Arkansas as his running mate.
I know, I know, the upchuckster simply loves Jesus. I mean, he really, really, really, really loves him. His policies? Well, he really, really, really, really loves Jesus! Did I mention he was an ex-pastor?
Idiots.
News for you: the Huckster "lost most of the southern states that the GOP must have." The important battleground states in the south are Florida, Florida, Missouri, Virginia, and Texas.
You Hucksters really need to get out more. Most red states are not located in the south! Understand? Of the few states that Huck won, most are about as safely republican as it gets.
Look at Huck's results in the south. He roughly split the vote in thirds with McCain and Romney. Even in the south, Romney's toughest region, he gets 30% in GA, 24% in TN, 29% in MO and 31% in FL. The results show that Huckabee was not even competive in the most importtant southern state of Florida! Not even counting Florida, approximately TWO-THIRDS OF SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST HUCKABEE. And Huck was simply a fringe candidate in many of the battleground states and regions.
"alienates one-third of the base"? Too bad you have nothing to back that up with. The facts are that Romney was the clear conservative choice as proven by exit polls and election results. Romney competed in 29 states, won 11 and came in second place in another 11 states. One 4th place finish. He enjoyed pretty good support all over the country.
Conversely, Huckabee competed in 41states, won a few southern primaries and finished 3RD OR 4TH IN THE VOTING TWENTY (20) TIMES! Polling at the conservative political action committee showed Huchkabee with a higher negative rating than McCain. You have NOTHING to support your argument. Huckabee has ZERO appeal outside of a segment of evangelicals, stands no chance ever of winning the nomination.
Mitt violated the 11th commandment? Funny, all of the commentators noted that it was McCain and Huck doing the personal attacks as opposed to attacking on issues.
McCain played the huckster like a drum, knowing Huckabee posed no serious challenge. Huckabee proved he was nothing but a fringe southern evangelical candidate -- who couldn't even win much in the south! What a joke.
Don't you know the primary is over? Huckabee and Romney both lost (Gov. Huckabee did not have much appeal outside of evangelicals and Romney couldn't quite close the deal). Why the name calling? They both have a lot to offer the GOP.
Just read your article. You Huckabee supporters are one sad pathetic bunch. Let the hate go, you will feel better. Trust me, this type of garbage does not help Gov. Huckabee -- just makes you guys look more out of touch with reality.
Hey Dr, Romney made very few campaign mistakes. That is why he went from relatively unknown to almost capturing the nomination and the clear choice of conservative republicans. The Huckster, by his attempts to belittle Romney's religion, became nothing but the ultra right-wing evangelical candidate with no cross-over appeal. He marginalyzed himself into appealing to no one outside of evangelicals.
Apparently you really do consider "speedo" insightful, thoughtful political analysis. That really says it all. No wonder no one takes you guys seriously. Honestly, try to get outside a little more.
Where in the original post did it say that the VEEP choice was between Huckabee and Romney?
And can't the Romney fanatics admit that Huckabee's cost-per-vote was literally pennies compared to massive sums blown by Romney?
Huck spent hardly any time or money in Florida . . . meanwhile Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, et al., were going virtually wall-to-wall in their "stop McCain" shilling for Romney. And the mainstream media had virtually anointed McCain as the nominee at that point.
Also don't forget that the time allocation in the debates allowed McCain and Romney to dominate, yielding tons of free media exposure.
Why the dead guy from "Weekend at Bernie's" could have pulled 30% in Florida with Romney's insane, everything-but-the-kitchen-sink spending, arsenal of vicious attack ads and robocalls, and the deafening concert of vouching from GOP conservative media stars (who all jettisoned their feigned "neutrality" when McCain started rolling)!
The fact that all of that wasn't enough to win points to the clear inadequacy of Romney as a candidate. He wouldn't suddenly become any better as a VEEP nominee.
It should also be noted that Romney was correct in that after Super Tuesday, Reagan himself probably couldn't have stopped McCain's momentum.
It's telling that even ardent Romney supporters on this thread admit that "there may be better candidates to help McCain in the general." Which to me seemed like the point of the original blog entry.
Not hate. If McCain picks Romney, that will alienate a lot of conservatives. There were a lot of strong points in the post and he was blunt, but on target.
More "must read" info on the folly of Romney as Veep.
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!510.entry
You are VERY WRONG on many counts!
Here are some very good reasons (despite your unsubstantiated dribble) why McCain would be wise, in my opinion, to pick Mitt for the V.P. slot.
1)There is widespread agreement that if John McCain loses this year, Gov. Romney will run in 2012. If Gov. Romney were on the ticket as V.P. next in line for the GOP nod in 2016, Mr. McCain would not have to worry about whether Mr. Romney would work as hard as possible for a McCain/Romney win this year.
2)Governor Romney is very intelligent, and I think he would be very comfortable dealing with foreign dignitaries.
3)Governor Romney is very rich and has a well-oiled fund-raising circuit that would be very beneficial to Mr. McCain.
4)Governor Romney would bring expertise to economic matters that Mr. McCain seems to be lacking.
5)Governor Romney would bring executive experience as a Governor to the ticket.
6)Governor Romney would bring almost all of his supporters to help with a McCain/Romney ticket, thereby assuring that his supporters aren’t trying to bring him attention to a potential 2012 run, nipping such conversation quickly, before it takes root and is hard to break apart.
7)Governor Romney appeals to social, economic and defense conservatives, bringing the whole Party and most of the Conservative Movement - including talk radio - on board with the ticket.
8)Romney supporters are very enthusiastic and dedicated. You cannot buy this kind of endearment, but McCain would be able to pick up his supporters, and their already-in-place organizational and other skills they would have to offer to the ticket.
9)Romney would help John McCain in purple states such as Michigan, Nevada and Minnesota, and could possibly even put Massachusetts in play in November.
10)Governor Romney brings all the necessary ingredients to John McCain’s campaign that he so desperately needs to succeed against Hillary - and especially - an Obama Democratic opponent.
11)You cannot buy loyalty like Governor Romney has with his supporters. You have to EARN it. By giving Romney the nod for the V.P. slot, McCain would be showing the Conservative Movement in America that he will not abandon them in the future. If he does this, he will almost be unstoppable in the fall against the Democrats.
12)Governor Romney is now widely seen as heir next in line to be the GOP nominee if McCain were to be defeated, or if McCain served two terms, then 2116, if Romney stays in the game that long. The move to make Romney V.P. would silence many evangelical and social conservatives who now would support Gov. Romney, including Dr. Dobson and others. This would shore up support among Mr. Huckabee’s supporters to Mr. McCain, endearing McCain as the one who actually DID bring the Party and Conservative Movement together to defeat the Democrats and take BACK both Houses of Congress!
13)Gov. Romney was the clear “change” candidate - and ran on that theme. The move to make Romney V.P. would be a tough ticket against a Hillary/Obama ticket. Change wins almost every time. We would now be able to bring that on-the-ground message IMMEDIATELY!
14)As the man who actually did something about - and has earned him wide recognition of - healthcare reform, he is the ideal man to blunt the Democrat’s BillaryCare proposals. This item would essentially be OURS as Republicans, which would deflate much criticism against the Republicans for not adequately addressing this critical issue thus far!
15)By picking Romney, we come out a totally unified Republican Party AND Conservative Movement - ready to hit the ground RUNNING to fight against the Democrats NOW!
16)McCain IS (if he won) the President-elect. He WILL be the Commander in Chief. McCain WILL be the boss - apple sauce -non debatable. McCain will get his way on very many things. But, Mr. Romney can still use cabinet meetings and gestures to try to persuade Mr. McCain to go all the way toward Ronald Reagan’s principled road of social, economic and military-might conservatism. Mr. McCain will ALWAYS win. But, Romney will be RIGHT there to balance McCain as needed.
17)Romney would be good for McCain, since Romney is NOT a “yes” man. Romney is a principled, determined conservative who is GRACIOUS -yet stern when applicable - who can turn the other cheek when needed, after his opinions are known and rejected. He PROVED that by bowing out graciously and promising to work hard for Mr. McCain as the GOP nominee-to-be. Mr. McCain does NOT need a “yes” man, but rather someone who can keep his temper and political wavering’s from right issues in check. This would help blunt criticism about his temper.
18)An informal straw vote among those present to see who they might prefer for President after the CPAC convention showed Romney winning it with about 34%, followed by John McCain at about 33 %, and Huckabee way down at only about 14 percent. This vote proves that adding Gov. Romney to the ticket would quell the right, and go along way toward making sure they aren’t complacent on election day.
19)If McCain does not pick a well-known conservative for V.P., it may take MONTHS for the Republican electorate to get know and accept him, as was the case with Gov. Romney. Conservatives now know that Romney is “one of us,” after his gracious exodus speech at a stunned CPAC convention. People cried. My wife cried. I cried. You CANNOT buy that kind of endearment! Governor Mitt Romney EARNED IT!
20)John McCain is old, grey, and not very attractive overall. A V.P. pick that is younger, more handsome, and without so many grey hairs will help McCain with some voters concerns about such things. Romney fits-the-bill here.
21)No other governor fits as many specific criteria that a V.P. should have than Governor Romney. A pick that is OTHER than a governor for the V.P. slot isn’t as attractive to some voters. Executive experience does matter, and Romney can balance a McCain ticket in this way.
22)A V.P. pick should already be politically battle-hardened so that there won’t be embarrassing moments for the campaign. Romney took punches from virtuously everyone - and still stayed a gentlemen under pressure.
23)A V.P. pick MUST be a scandal and corruption-free pick that under the intense scrutiny of the media’s microscope, will not be a negative for the campaign. Romney is about as pure as new snow as one can get. His first and only wife, along with ALL his children, are fine, upstanding citizens with no baggage to bring to a McCain campaign.
24)Many Romney supporters feel like they were shafted by McCain due to his mis-characterization (some say lie) of Romney’s stance on time tables and troops withdrawal from Iraq right before the Florida contest. Romney supporters are keenly aware of the extreme distaste McCain and some of his supporters have for Mr. Romney, and this seems to be feeding a movement for him to run in 2012, ceding the 2008 election to the Democrats. If Romney becomes McCain’s V.P. choice, most of this talk, including the movement, would stop, with Romney supporters instead working hard for the McCain/Romney 2008 ticket.
25)Many Mormons feel betrayed and bitter about what many see as Mr. Huckabee’s overt anti-Mormon bigotry. The history of the Republican Party and Mormons goes back many years, and Mormons have ALWAYS been a strong, reliable source of strength for our Party. By putting Mr. Romney on the ticket, they will feel that Mr. McCain is really not going to let our Party leave them feeling left out, possibly losing this constituency for a long time to come. Let’s be a party of inclusion that the voters approve of, not of the bigoted few that only divide us to eventual ruin.
Despite your charge against Romney that he has flip-flopped, he has only really changed his stance substantially on ONE ISSUE. That is abortion, which Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. also changed their minds about. Do NOT slander Romney any longer!
I share the blogger's distaste for Romney, whose combination of media control (via the bain-clear channel connection) and phony conservatism is as big a threat as anything on the Democratic side. However, I must say that the tone of the post (particularly the religious references) is not helpful. Although he is correct on many points, the blogger weakens his argument by resorting to name-calling and appealing to religious bigotry. It is bad enough that Romney is a liar and opportunist who virtually owns a large percentage of the media in this country. A vote for Romney is a vote to further corrupt the democratic process and move toward totalitarianism. But his religion is beside the point.
What McCain needs in running mate is: (1) a true conservative to shore up the GOP base; (2) a respected political figure that the media and Democrats cannot easily trash (no Dan Quayles or Spiro Agnews); (3) someone obviously qualified to step in as president if McCain dies; (4) someone significantly younger than age 72. Romney simply fails the first test, and possibly even the second and third tests. Personally, I think someone like former Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist would be a good pick for McCain. Frist is conservative, difficult to trash, qualified, and age 56.
I'm a life-long Republican. But as a Mormon, why should I vote for McCain no matter who he picks? After all the lies about my religion and its members spread by McCain's and Huckubee's surrogates and so many other Republicans, I think maybe I should vote for Barack Obama. Maybe that would show you all that Mormons aren't as racist as so many have alleged. Serves the GOP right when they can't even hold Utah this cycle, the most consistently conservative state in the Nation.
romney is a date with a low level gangster, whether he's waterboarding, or leveraging buyouts that wrecked families from the tax free shelter of the cayman islands. when the tenacious patrick j fitzgerald gets ahold of him, there won't be anything left of the slick-suited gangster. he's a plasticky girleeman whose sons, unlike mccain's, are alergic to serving their country. as massa's gov, he fought the family and carried swill for the gays. bain capital's dealing with the chinese who are spying on the pentagon is treason...what would happen in a general election if the democrats got ahold of romney's past? let's face it - 'varmitts' romney is a weak sister - not even a conservative. if you cult types want a big boss, why pick a mormon pipsqueak? try a jewish catholic - then we'll be hunting down more than varmitts - its called big game...then all you little varmitts will have sold yourselves out to a slubglob who can really win...
"Despite your charge against Romney that he has flip-flopped, he has only really changed his stance substantially on ONE ISSUE. That is abortion . . . ."
WRONG!
http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2008/02/what-change-means-to-mitt-romney-rob.html
WHAT "CHANGE" MEANS TO MITT ROMNEY
Rob Bryant (reprinted from www.mikehuckabee.com)
02/04/2008 01:33 PM
Mitt Romney - "The Candidate of Change"
Mitt Romney was Pro-Life, then he CHANGED.
Mitt Romney was Pro-Choice, then he CHANGED
Mitt Romney was in favor of gun control, including bans on assault rifles and handguns, then he CHANGED.
Mitt Romney favored secret timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, then he CHANGED.
Mitt Romney supported Civil Unions and the right for Gays to marry. Now he has CHANGED.
Mitt Romney said he was a life long hunter, but after he was caught in this lie he CHANGED his story.
Mitt Romney said he saw his father march with Martin Luther King, after being caught in this lie, he CHANGED his story.
Mitt Romney said Mike Huckabee is a liberal. Now he has CHANGED his story and is complaining that Huckabee is bleeding off his conservative vote.
Mitt Romney wanted to raise taxes in Massachusetts so he CHANGED their name to fees.
Mitt Romney said he was not a part of the Reagan-Bush thing, then he CHANGED his story to say he would rebuild the house that Reagan built.
Romney is the candidate of change alright, but his change involves his positions on many key issues. We cannot trust this man.
http://speedzzter.blogspot.com/2008/02/romney-not-huckabee-is-spoiler.html
Voters are smart enough to sniff out a devious snake in an Armani skin. The following are a few well-documented flip-flops on issues of critical importance to Evangelicals and other Social Conservative voters:
ABORTION RIGHTS
"I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard."
Boston Herald Debate, 10/29/02
"Roe v. Wade continues to work its destructive logic throughout our society This can't continue."
Speech to the Massachusetts Citizens For Life Mother's Day Pioneer Valley Dinner, 5/10/07
IMMIGRATION REFORM
"With these 11 million people [here illegally], let's have them registered, know who they are....those that are here paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process towards application for citizenship."
Lowell Sun, 3/30/06
"One simple rule: no amnesty. If that [Kennedy-McCain bill] is not a form of amnesty, I don't know what is."
New York Times, 6/4/07
[Romney is apparently the only remaining GOP candidate who has actually employed illegal aliens -- at the Romney Mansion]
GUN LAWS
"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Romney in 2002 gov. debate, Boston Globe, 1/14/07
"I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA [for less than one year] and believe firmly in the right to bear arms."
Boston Globe, 1/14/07
AMENDMENT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE
"Mitt does not support it...As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it's unnecessary."
Romney spokesman, Boston Globe, 3/22/02
[As governor, Mitt Romney issued an executive order forcing justices of the peace to perform homosexual weddings, or resign. Then he ordered marriage licenses changed to read "party A" and "party B" – instead of "husband" and "wife."]
"When I was Governor, we took every conceivable step within the law to stop, block or slow down this unprecedented court decision."
Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07
"NO NEW TAXES" PLEDGE
"I'm not intending to, at this stage, sign a document which would prevent me from being able to look specifically at the revenue needs of the commonwealth"
Associated Press, 3/27/02
"Signing the pledge now sends a very clear message to those in Washington who have voted against tax relief and for tax hikes that such actions will never grow our regional and national economies."
Romney spokesman, Boston Globe, 1/5/07
MINIMUM WAGE
"I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation. I think the minimum wage is a good thing to have in our economy and I think it ought to be updated."
Boston Globe, 10/17/94
"[T]he challenge with raising the minimum wage excessively is it is a hurt to those that are entering the work force, the very poor, those that are trying to get early jobs, get those first jobs." Associated Press, 7/25/06
CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY
"I don't think you go back and rewrite the contract the government has with people who've retired."
Boston Globe, 10/17/94
"Personal accounts would be a big plus."... [Romney]also said changing the retirement age could be considered, as well as basing the Social Security cost of living adjustment on a different inflation gauge.
Union Leader, 6/7/07
ADOPTION NON-DISCRIMINATION
Governor Mitt Romney and a legislative leader yesterday delivered unwelcome news to the Catholic bishops of Massachusetts, who plan to seek permission from the state to exclude gay and lesbian parents from adopting children through its social service agencies. The governor said he was not authorized to give such an exemption...
Boston Globe, 2/17/06
"And then another slide along the slippery slope. The Catholic Church was forced to end its adoption service, which was crucial in helping the state find homes for some of our most difficult to place children... Now, even religious freedom was being trumped by the new-found 'right' of gay marriage."
Speech to National Right to Life Convention, 6/15/07
STEM CELL RESEARCH
[Romney]endorsed embryonic stem cell research, saying the controversial science might one day help treat his wife's multiple sclerosis...."I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research. I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch."
Boston Globe, 6/14/02
"FACT: Governor Romney Opposes Using Taxpayer Money to Fund Embryo-Destructive Research."
MittRomney.com A Record of Protecting Life
BUSH TAX CUTS
Governor Mitt Romney refused yesterday to endorse tax cuts at the heart of President Bush's economic program...In addition to refusing to endorse the president's tax cut, the governor surprised several people at the meeting by saying he is open to a federal increase in gas taxes.
Boston Globe, 4/11/0
[Romney] said it was "absolutely critical" to renew tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush. Letting them expire would result in a "massive tax increase" that would retard economic growth, Romney said.
Detroit Free Press, 2/8/07
DESIRE TO SERVE IN VIETNAM
"I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam..."
Boston Herald, 5/2/94
["As the Vietnam War raged in the 1960s, Mitt Romney received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon 'minister of religion' for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years.
Before and after his missionary deferment, Romney also received nearly three years of deferments for his academic studies. When his deferments ended and he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual lottery that determined which young men were drafted. His high number ensured he was not drafted into the military.
The deferments for Mormon missionaries became increasingly controversial in the late 1960s, especially in Utah, leading the Mormon Church and the government to limit the number of church missionaries who could put off their military service. That agreement called for each church ward, or church district, to designate one male every six months to be exempted from potential duty for the duration of his missionary work.
Romney's home state was Michigan, making his 4-D exemption as a missionary all but automatic because of the relatively small number of Mormon missionaries from that state. . .
By serving as a missionary and being given the deferment, Romney ensured that he would not be drafted from July 1966 until February 1969. Romney's draft record from the time describes him as 'minister of religion or divinity student.'" Boston Globe, 6/27/07]
"I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam."
Boston Globe, 6/24/07
REAGAN REPUBLICANISM
"I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush."
Boston Herald, 10/27/94
"Ronald Reagan is ... my hero. ... I believe that our party's ascendancy began with Ronald Reagan's brand of visionary and courageous leadership."
Boston Globe, 1/19/07
There are many more examples of flip-flops by Governor Romney which appear to be motivated for political gain.
To paraphrase a campaign slogan from 1992, "It's the flip-flops, Stupid!"
07 February, 2008 06:28
Romney is a talented businessman. He's very intelligent. But he projects even less charisma and sincerity than both Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards combined (if that were possible).
He got the LEAST return on investment of almost any Presidential Candidate in history. His wins almost exclusively occurred in states where he grew up in, where he served his four years as Governor or where he was the only one who campaigned. He's simply not a good candidate.
And for the Republicans who think that they're going to march to the White House on the strength of Pastor Jeremiah Wright, do you want to neutralize the issue by picking a VP who grew up in a church that didn't permit black people to join because they preached that blacks are cursed?
http://thevaluesvoter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!F3D4C1BC1D8B0D91!510.entry
Although the clear choice of the party elites, Romney is a fraudulent hack who would be poison to moderates and middle-of-the-road voters. Moreover, he was soundly rejected by social conservatives and born-agains (as opposed to self-described "evangelicals" - a term so misused it has become meaningless) whose enthusiastic support the Republicans will desperately need come November.
A McCain-Romney ticket, especially against Obama-Richardson, would place traditional red states in peril. Accordingly, McCain's best bet is Huckabee. This is especially true given the hate-church mess which Obama should not be allowed to evade. With Romney on the ticket, any continuing discussion of Obama's complicity in inculcating racial division in his community AND his own family will be off-limits for the Republicans, in that such discussion would inevitably prompt the media turn its attention to Romney's Mormonism. Which is more racist, by the way, Mormonism or Wright's brand of "Black Christianity"? Pretty much a wash, isn't it. But the Romney as VP will also allow the media to sugar-coat its poison: imagine, for example, a NYT think piece on "the changing face of religion in politics," in which the author contrasts McCain's Baptist-Episcopalian background (and his apparently less than religious church attendance) and Romney's devoted Mormonism against the "old-time Christianity" of Obama or Clinton, etc.
With Huckabee on the ticket, the opposite will occur - every time his religious belief becomes and issue, he can point to his years of color-blind sermons and service. If they don't know it by now, most voters will soon recognize that it is Huckabee, and not Obama, who offers a genuinely different approach to politics and power.
Speedzzter:
You may or may not say that you are not a religious bigot. Regardless, just remember that "by their fruits shall ye know them" and "judge not that ye be not judged". I'm afraid you have more than just a mote in your eye speedzzter...
Please don't project what you see as defects in one person who happens to be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints onto the rest of the members of that church, who feel it is a God-given right to worship how they see fit, and allow all men the same privilege...which is a constitutional right.
Remember, we are all sinners.
Love,
your neighbor
I don't know if Romney made McCain's short list for VP, but I will guarantee you that Huckabee is not on it. McCain isn't going to unite the GOP by picking a VP that alienates the other half of it.
Doesn't really matter, though. If I were Romney I wouldn't have anything to do with this star-crossed ticket. Now that everyone has seen what the evangelicals are like when they get a little power and influence, nobody wants to be in the same party with them. I've been a Republican all my life, so it doesn't give me any pleasure to say it, but Democrats are going to win in a landslide. Doesn't matter who the nominate.
Actually, the funny thing is that Huck did all that work for McCain as the Romney spoiler and he isn't going to get anything from John McCain. There is no way McCain is going select someone who has even less of a clue about the economy than he does.
Face it. Huckabee was nothing more than McCain's...eh...callgirl this eleciton cycle.
Let’s go point by point, shall we?
You said, “Mitt Romney was Pro-Life, then he CHANGED.”
“Mitt Romney was Pro-Choice, then he CHANGED”
Romney has said all along that he has aways been personally pro-life, but fought for as and for a pro-Roe verses Wade public position until he said he realized it was wrong. He never went back on that position again.
You said, “Mitt Romney was in favor of gun control, including bans on assault rifles and handguns, then he CHANGED.”
“The measure would prohibit the sale of semiautomatic, military-style assault weapons such as the AK-47, the Uzi, and shotguns with certain accessories. The gun-friendly provisions include a six-year gun license instead of the current four years, creation of a review board with power to restore gun licenses to people convicted of certain misdemeanors, and a 90-day grace period for expired firearm identification cards and licenses to carry. ”There are a lot of good things in the bill,” said Jim Wallace, legislative director of the Gun Owners Action League, the state’s leading pro-gun group. ”In all, the bill represents a healing process, or the beginning of the healing process, between lawful gun owners and the Massachusetts Legislature.” http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2004/06/24/state_moves_on_assault_weapons_ban?pg=full
I don’t see any indication that he has changed his position on this issue.
You said, “Mitt Romney favored secret timetables for withdrawal from Iraq, then he CHANGED.”
‘Romney said that the next “president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about.” That quote was derided by McCain at the time as a “secret timetable,” although Romney never said he favored a particular withdrawal date and did not advocate an inflexible timeline for American troops to begin a draw down. Indeed, Romney has many times said he opposed such a withdrawal timetable.’ http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/mccain_campares_romney_to_demo.php
You said, “Mitt Romney supported Civil Unions and the right for Gays to marry. Now he has CHANGED.”
“From day one I’ve opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions.” “I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative,” Romney said in an interview in his office. “I’ve made it clear as humanly possible.”
“Call me old fashioned, but I don’t support gay marriage nor do I support civil union.” Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: “But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage.” http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/02/23/romneys_stance_on_civil_unions_draws_fire/?page=1
You said, “Mitt Romney said he was a life long hunter, but after he was caught in this lie he CHANGED his story”
Mitt Romney said he was a life-long hunter, which is TRUE, even though he didn’t hunt hardly much at all, and what he did hunt were mostly little varmints. It’s called embellishing - which Mr. Huckabee hasn’t done?
You said, “Mitt Romney said he saw his father march with Martin Luther King, after being caught in this lie, he CHANGED his story.”
I have found no evidence of Romney changing his story on this issue. In fact, there has been corroborating testimony that indeed his father did go part-way with MLK in that march.
‘Shirley Basore, 72, says she was sitting in the hairdresser’s chair in wealthy Grosse Pointe, Mich., back in 1963 when a rumpus started and she discovered that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and her governor, George Romney, were marching for civil rights — right past the window. “They were hand in hand,” recalled Basore, a former high-school English teacher. “They led the march. We all swung our hands, and they held their hands up above everybody else’s.” She remembered the late governor as “extremely handsome.”’ http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7524.html
You said, “Mitt Romney said Mike Huckabee is a liberal. Now he has CHANGED his story and is complaining that Huckabee is bleeding off his conservative vote.”
Where is your proof that Romney changed his story? Mitt did refer to Huckabee’s liberal fiscal record AND stated Huck was taking away conservative votes. BOTH can still be true, can’t they?
You said, “Mitt Romney wanted to raise taxes in Massachusetts so he CHANGED their name to fees.”
Where is your proof of this accusation? Mitt Romney did NOT raise taxes in MA. That is slander. Raising user fees and other fees that mostly hadn’t been raised for many, many years is exactly that, and definitely NOT the raising of taxes. http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/NEWS08/312130115/-1/news08
You said, “Mitt Romney said he was not a part of the Reagan-Bush thing, then he CHANGED his story to say he would rebuild the house that Reagan built.”
Romney did say he was NOT part of the Reagan-Bush thing as you say, but has admitted that the older (wiser) he gets, the better Reagan and his ideas look to him. Becoming more conservative is a good thing, otherwise why try to persuade anyone, right? In that case, almost ALL older conservatives become gross flipfloppers from the time of their youth. You can count most conservative icons of the Movement in that group.
ABORTION RIGHTS
See above references.
IMMIGRATION REFORM
He has repeatedly stated that he is STILL against the Z-VISA, which was NOT in the first bill the Senate had considered. The reason for that position is because it would have granted immediate preference and legal status to ALL illegal immigrants, save criminals. He has since sided with the concept of attrition, although I don’t think he would rule out letting some illegal aliens touch back with their home countries, then wait in line in back of legal applicants.
“[Romney is apparently the only remaining GOP candidate who has actually employed illegal aliens — at the Romney Mansion]”
This is another slander of Romney you have provided. Romney has NOT, as far as I know, EVER hired illegal immigrants. He contracted with a service which was employing illegal immigrants. It would be akin to me hiring a maid through a company that hired an illegal alien, then blaming ME for it. Absurd!
GUN LAWS
There doesn’t seem to be a problem with Mitt both supporting current gun laws of his state and firmly believing in the right to bear arms, unless one believes anyone should have the right to carry weapons regardless of previous criminal conviction or mental stability. You could argue a nuanced view here, but I think it would be debatable within the Republican party itself.
AMENDMENT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE
“From day one I’ve opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions.”
“I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative,” Romney said.
A review of Romney’s remarks shows that at an October 2002 campaign debate, he said: “Call me old fashioned, but I don’t support gay marriage nor do I support civil union.” Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: “But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage.”
“Faced with a choice of civil unions or gay marriage, I’ll take civil unions anytime,” Romney said. “But that doesn’t make me a supporter of civil unions. . . . My statement in South Carolina is absolutely accurate.”
“Romney also revealed that he opposes attempts by some Massachusetts city and town clerks to revamp birth certificates to accommodate same-sex parents. He said he has been urged to remove mother and father on the certificate and replace the language with gender-neutral phrases, “parent a” and “parent b.”
The head of the Massachusetts Town Clerks Association said yesterday she has urged Romney to change the birth certificate form. Some clerks currently cross out mother or father in the case of same-sex parents.
“These couples deserve to have a document that is correct,” said Linda Hutchenrider, who as Barnstable town clerk records most of the births at Cape Cod Hospital. “The child has every right in the world to have a birth certificate with his [or her] parents on it and with no crossouts on it. . . . I understand what the governor is saying, but I disagree with him.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900879.html
NO NEW TAXES PLEDGE
You do not seem to think running a state is different than running a country. He did NOT raise taxes, although he did want the right to do so in case of emergencies so that the safety of the commonwealth wouldn’t be detrimentally affected somehow. IN the other quote you provided, I believe the Romney spokesman was talking about REGIONS that would be affected by FEDERAL tax hikes - NOT state taxes - although I don’t believe the Governor would endorse raising state taxes, either, except for the reasons that I have stated above.
MINIMUM WAGE
You cannot seem to differentiate between two completely DIFFERENT answers and a nuance answer. If I told you I was against “raising the minimum wage excessively,’ but also favored updating the minimum wage “to keep pace with inflation,” could you not understand that I can be in favor of BOTH, and not be a hypocrite? Life is shock full of nuances, and you don’t seem to be able to differentiate between truth and lies because I think you seem to lack the wisdom to do so.
CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY
Again, you don’t seem to know much about the subtle DIFFERENCES and degrees in life. Can I be FOR changing the retirement age “as well as basing the Social Security cost of living adjustment on a different inflation gauge AND not be in favor of going “back” and rewriting the “contract the government has with people who’ve retired.” Excuse me, but they have ALREADY RETIRED.
ADOPTION NON-DISCRIMINATION
Here again you show your total lack of understanding basic structures of arguments. “The governor said he was not authorized to give such an exemption…” which means he COULDN’T help them due to the law! Then he bemoaned that fact stating: “The Catholic Church was forced to end its adoption service, which was crucial in helping the state find homes for some of our most difficult to place children… Now, even religious freedom was being trumped by the new-found ‘right’ of gay marriage.”
Speech to National Right to Life Convention”
STEM CELL RESEARCH
I will admit your two quotes here seem to indicate a duplicitous strain of Romney’s in this area, at least to a staunch pro-lifer like me. Thankfully, new technology could make this issue obsolete.
“But this new dimension, which is creating new embryos through cloning, this is a very new line, and I would not cross that line,” Romney said yesterday.
“Romney said he reached his decision after meeting with researchers, ethicists, and advocates and discussing the issue with his wife, Ann. Ann Romney has multiple sclerosis, a disease that stem cell research might one day help to treat.”
“Massachusetts Citizens for Life and the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, which have lobbied heavily against the Legislature’s previous efforts to approve stem cell bills, said they oppose the governor’s stance because they believe a human embryo is a human being that should not be destroyed, even if it is left over from in vitro fertilization.”
BUSH TAX CUTS
Refusing to endorse does not equate opposition. It means he did NOT take a position on it. Obviously, AFTER the tax cuts were employed, and since he was running as a GOP candidate for President, he DID in fact take a position. He favors them.
“In 2004, Romney got through a fivefold increase in the fee gasoline retailers paid to deliver fuel at filling stations. The money went to clean up spills and underground storage leaks but brought in $40 million a year more than it took to run the program.” http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071213/NEWS08/312130115/-1/news08
DESIRE TO SERVE IN VIETNAM
”I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam…That agreement called for each church ward, or church district, to designate one male every six months to be exempted from potential duty for the duration of his missionary work.” There doesn’t seem to me to be a conflict here, so I won’t comment.
I am waiting for the “many more examples” of yours…
i actually read the blogs i comment on,
CLARIFICATION:
This is what you wrote:
[CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY
"I don't think you go back and rewrite the contract the government has with people who've retired."
Boston Globe, 10/17/94
"Personal accounts would be a big plus."... [Romney]also said changing the retirement age could be considered, as well as basing the Social Security cost of living adjustment on a different inflation gauge.]
This was my response:
[SOCIAL SECURITY
Again, you don’t seem to know much about the subtle DIFFERENCES and degrees in life. Can I be FOR changing the retirement age “as well as basing the Social Security cost of living adjustment on a different inflation gauge AND not be in favor of going “back” and rewriting the “contract the government has with people who’ve retired.” Excuse me, but they have ALREADY RETIRED.]
It should have been:
CUTTING SOCIAL SECURITY
Again, you don’t seem to know much about the subtle DIFFERENCES and degrees in life. Can I be FOR changing the retirement age, personal security accounts “as well as basing the Social Security cost of living adjustment on a different inflation gauge AND not be in favor of going “back” and rewriting the “contract the government has with people who’ve retired?”
"In 1972 legislation the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits." http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cola/index.htm
Transcript of Mitt Romney Speech at the Club for Growth, March 29, 2007
"Number two, people have talked about an inflation rate based upon consumer price index – perhaps some in the room don't recognize this, but for people right now, when you get your Social Security initial benefit, it's not inflated with the price index – it's inflated with a much higher index: the wage index. And if you just change the index from the wage index to the CPI that we're so used to, that we all talk about, that would pretty much solve the problem of our Social Security burden.
"You could also extend the retirement age and then there are personal accounts and a lot of folks have said, 'You know, we have a Social Security surplus right now. Why are we using that money to fund the government? Why don't we allow that money to be used to fund things like personal accounts and there could be other sources for personal accounts as well – voluntary, personal accounts." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/us/politics/23romney_speech.html?_r=1&pagewanted=7&oref=slogin
The only way you can say he is in favor of "cutting social security" is if you consider changing the COLA formula to render a more accurate reflection of actual the inflation rates. The only way you can say he is changing his mind here is to equate changing the COLAS (for those that have already retired) as somehow akin to "rewrite[rewriting] the contract the government has with people who've retired."
i actually read the blogs i comment on,
CORRECTION
you said, "Mitt Romney said he was a life long hunter, but after he was caught in this lie he CHANGED his story."
I said, "Mitt Romney said he was a life-long hunter, which is TRUE, even though he didn’t hunt hardly much at all, and what he did hunt were mostly little varmints. It’s called embellishing - which Mr. Huckabee hasn’t done?"
I should have said, "Romney said he was a life-long hunter, which is TRUE, even though he didn’t hunt hardly much at all, and what he did hunt were mostly little varmints. It’s called (gross) embellishing and (I believe)probably misspeaking - which Mr. Huckabee and others haven’t done? But, it is true he did change his story.
‘“I support the Second Amendment,” he told the man who had asked about his views on the constitutional right to bear arms. “I purchased a gun when I was a young man. I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life. I’ve never really shot anything terribly big. I used to hunt rabbits.”
‘Romney added: “Shooting a rabbit with a single-shot .22 is pretty hard, and after watching me try for a couple of weeks, (my cousins) said, ‘We’ll slip you the semiautomatic. You’ll do better with that.’ And I sure did.”
‘On the Georgia excursion, he said, “I knocked quite a few birds and enjoyed myself a great deal.”
‘“Governor Romney’s support for the Second Amendment doesn’t come from the fact he knows how to handle a firearm; it comes from his appreciation of the Constitution and the rights enshrined in it, including the right to keep and bear arms,” said campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom.
‘Romney told a Derry, N.H., audience, “I’m after the NRA’s endorsement. I’m not sure they’ll give it to me. I hope they will. I also joined because if I’m going to ask for their endorsement, they’re going to ask for mine.”’ http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070404-1055-romney-hunting.html
I apologise. You were correct.
i actually read the blogs i comment on,
Am I mistaken, or did you get your information from 'The Book on Mitt Romney' which is 'PAID FOR AND PROVIDED BY THE MASSACHUSSETTES DEMOCRATIC PARTY?'
If you did indeed get your information from that source, then you should be ASHAMED of yourself for believing and SPREADING their propaganda. And if that is the case, why didn't you do your own homework?
I believe you are pushing propaganda FOR the Democrats. What say you?
And I am STILL waiting for the “many more examples” of yours…
See for yourself if "i actually read the blogs i comment on" got his information (read propaganda) from 'The Book on Mitt Romney' which is 'PAID FOR AND PROVIDED BY THE MASSACHUSSETTES DEMOCRATIC PARTY?'
http://romneyfacts.com/redblue.php
BTW, maybe Speedzzter should just stick to cars since he OBVIOUSLY doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to politics and Mr. Romney. Why should he make false claims he CANNOT back up and therefore ruin his reputation?
Post a Comment
<< Home