Various Romney Items
We've gotten a couple of emails this afternoon on Romney tidbits not relating to the Michigan bomb being discussed at great length below. Feel free to chime in. (everyone's doing it)
Here's a tally of Romney's Presidential travels (the cites on some of the other candidates are old.)
Romney also was on Sean Hannity today talking about how he is not going to give aid and comfort to former Iranian leaders.
posted by Caucus Cooler at 9/06/2006
29 Comments:
Romney got this one right . . . and the WHOLE RIGHT of America seems to be with him on this.
See
here to see how the blogosphere is ablaze with praise for Romney's action!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mitt Romney has got "lot of things right".
Mitt Romney has got a lot of things right.
I think he's doing it all for show. His police force will pick up the slack.
Hmmm... Anonymous posters, consider the source we do....
Hmmm.... Smartchick2008, you have earned your Pink lightsaber and a seat on the Jedi Council.
Welcome to the official caucus cooler minion Romney love thread. Anon 1146 not going with the theme.
hmmmm... Moderate terrorists, now that's funny!
And Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) was on the "O'Reilly Factor" to discuss his decision not to provide protection for former Iranian Pres. Mohammed Khatami when he visits Harvard.
Romney: "What I say is that on that September 10th and September 11th, on the fifth anniversary of an extraordinary tragedy in America, you don't welcome a person to Harvard with open arms who has preached the destruction of Israel, who has developed nuclear technology, contrary to what he had said, who has jailed dissident students in his country, who has praised Hezbollah. This is a person who's words are worth nothing"
Caucus,
Your comment seems to put you on "Romney Love Thread" too.
Waiting to hear Gary Glenn's opinion on this.
We love everybody in the Cooler, you know that Jeff!
hmmm... I was agreeing with you. The media elite, can see moderation in terrorism, speak volumes about the media it does...
They loved Arafat too, Guiliani had the rocks to give him the no escort treatment too.
hmmmmm.... The old internet mind trick, must be....
Jeff and other Romney defenders, grab your nitroglycerin so I don't give you a heart attack...
Just watched Gov. Romney on O'Reilly and thought he did an excellent job on that particular issue, on which I strongly agree.
Which nonetheless leaves me unmoved re: his reliability on the other issues I've raised about his decade-long record BE (before evolution) of promoting abortion on demand and major elements of homosexual activists' political agenda.
At the urging of his MI staff, I did intro myself to the governor at the recent MI GOP convention and told him that though I do not aspire to or believe he's in any way obligated to explain anything to me personally, I would be happy to meet with him and listen to any reponse he may have to the concerns I raise.
In contrast, for all the "Glenn-McCain" conspiracy fruitloops out there, I was invited months ago to meet with McCain and refused -- as reported by the LA Times -- unless and until he reverses his opposition to a federal Marriage Protection Amendment, and even then I still wouldn't trust him (any more than I do Romney) for the mere fact that he has to reverse himself to be on the right side of the issue.
If a guy in his 50's (Romney) or 60's or 70's (McCain) doesn't have core convictions by that age, I don't have a lot of faith in the sincerity of their finally discovering them so late in life...or "evolving" into them.
But being firmly opposed to terrorists who chant "Death to America" and want to nuke Israel?
Doesn't require anything terribly impressive to at least share that core conviction with most Americans, though Romney did do an excellent job of communicating it.
If only the totality of his record were equally firm in defending conservative social values. He has good commo skills and knows exactly what social conservatives want to hear on those issues, it's just that what he says now is so dramatically at odds with what he's said before.
And I remain equally concerned about his bad stand on the homosexual agenda-related issues on which he has not yet flip-flopped.
GG
Glen, how old was Ronald Reagan when he "evolved" on the issue? did you trust him?
Ah yes, the Reagan card...
On which perchance I've done some research.
Yoda catches me on the age thing, but that's about all.
Reagan elected in '66, at age 55, I believe. In '67, signs bill that allows abortions only for rape, incest, or to save the life or health of the mother, but compared to the pre-existing ban, that was liberalizing the state's policy.
Reagan was NEVER an advocate for abortion on demand, nor did he ever insistently argue in favor of the same, as Romney did in public life for a decade.
Reagan very hesitantly signed that '67 bill despite being torn over whether the "health" exception would be interpreted to allow abortion with little if any limitation. As Reagan feared, it was, and within a year of signing it, he said he had been mistaken.
According to Reagan biographer Lou Cannon (my source on all this stuff), this was the one and only public policy act in Reagan's entire career on which he characterized himself (and immediately afterwards) as having been wrong.
By the time he ran for president a decade later (when I was in high school), he ran as a pro-life candidate and was elected, of course, in 1980.
So the only Reagan I ever knew was a pro-life Reagan. I had no reason not to trust him.
Thus, if we want to fairly apply the Reagan principle to Romney, let Mitt publicly tell us now that he was wrong to support Roe, wrong to argue in favor of "abortion rights" and a woman's "right to choose," acknowledge the damage he did as a supposedly "conservative" Mormon Republican by legitimizing in the minds of impressionable Repubs and swing voters the "choice" to terminate a prenatal child's life...
...then come back to us in 2016 and run on his then decade-old pro-life record...
...rather than ask our support after a decade of running as an "abortion rights"..."sustain and support Roe v. Wade"..."women should be free to choose"...pro-abortion on demand candidate, followed by a sudden late-in-life "evolution" that's now 13 months old and counting.
Bzzzzzz...
(Having thus defended RR's honor against attempts to use him to help MR evade accountablity, the sound of my light saber switching...off.)
GG
Thanks for the advice, Murph.
For now, I think I'll just keep applying pressure instead.
SAGINAW NEWS
Saginaw, Michigan
September 9, 2006
"Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan, criticized the governor's record on abortion and homosexuality, citing previous endorsements from groups such as Republican Majority for Choice and the Log Cabin Republicans, who campaigned against amendments banning gay marriage. 'After a political career stretching from his late 40s to his late 50s, Romney asks pro-family conservatives to believe that he's only now ... figuring out his core beliefs,' Glenn wrote in a statement."
Murph: "It's more important to work with people on a common cause...and let's get some conservative justices!"
Agreed. Are you suggesting that I support Gov. Huckabee, whose views on social issues and likely court nominees are not in question as Romney's are?
And yes, Cancer, we should all be as Christian and as professional as possible.
Am I wrong?
Don't we have a 91 post thread dedicated to this topic already?
Not a great weekend for the Panthers, Cancer Man...
I always know I've prevailed when, in response to a substantive argument or point, those who don't agree resort to personal attack (a la SmartChick).
When "shoot the messenger" -- or ridicule the messenger, or question the messenger's motives -- is all they have left, you know the substantive argument is...over.
GG
Re: SmartChick's niece...
"So...my niece, who is going to be voting for the first time in 2008, will be able to consider Romney pro-life because she's always known him as pro-life, but I who am, ahem, a bit older can't consider him pro-life?"
Thus, SmartChick's niece will be at least 18 in 2008, which means she was at least 15 in June 2005, one month before Romney announced that his insistent decade-long defense of a woman's "right to choose" to terminate the life of her prenatal child had "evolved" to a more GOP prez-primary-palatable pro-life position.
So if your niece was paying attention as recently as 13 months ago, she would have known the "women have the right to choose" Romney, followed a month later by the now-"evolved" pro-life Romney.
Thus, not the same situation I experienced. I was nine years old when Reagan signed the CA abortion law. By the time I was paying attention eight years later in 1976, Reagan had (1) acknowledged his '67 bill was a mistake which he regretted (something Romney has never done to my knowledge, i.e., say he was wrong to promote abortion on demand and express regret), and (2) RR had been on record as opposing abortion on demand for nearly a decade.
It is SmChick's prerogative, however, if she chooses, to hold me accountable now for having failed at age 17 to research RR's gubernatorial record of a decade earlier.
My point, which I think was clear the first time to the objective reader, was that Romney's "evolution" will gain far more credibility if a decade from now, he has consistently been pro-life over the course of time, i.e., far more believable than his 13-month old pro-life conversion is now, still in its infancy, ever so conveniently timed for political benefit in 2008, and so freshly in the footsteps of his "right to choose" rhetoric of the previous decade.
In 1968, thirteen months after Reagan signed the liberalization of CA's abortion law, pro-lifers certainly would have had legitimate reason to question RR on the issue. Then he openly said it was a mistake, expressed regret (reports Lou Cannon), and a decade later, nobody questioned his proven-over-time Right to Life convictions.
May it be so for MR.
In the meantime, having flipped on abortion and protecting marriage, he still hasn't flipped on his opposition to the Scouts' ban on homosexuals or his endorsement of homosexual DP legislation or Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation.
Since he's gonna be held accountable either way, better to be criticized for flipping to the right side across the board than for flipping on some but remaining on the wrong side on others.
GG
SmartChick: "I made an assessment of your most recent posting which I said was stupid and...I stand by every word."
I'm counting on that, Chick.
In contrast, not too difficult, I don't think, for the average reader to understand my meaning...that being that, at age 17, the pro-life Reagan was the only Reagan I ever knew. Never even learned of the '67 bill he signed until, if I recall correctly, reading one of the many RR bios I read after his death just a few years ago.
Romney's obviously a different case.
From 94 to 2002 to June 2005, he portrayed himself as supporting Roe and defending a woman's "right to choose." And according to his own words in that time, he said he'd supported abortion on demand as a matter of public policy since at least 1970. (Thus, interestingly, he was, according to his own testimony, pro-"choice" throughout the entire time period Reagan was pro-life.)
Then in July 2005, Romney announced that his views had "evolved," just in time to run for prez.
I'll keep reciting the facts.
You keep calling me "stupid" for doing so.
Having had a touch of experience with how such exchanges are viewed by observers who don't have a dog in this fight either way, I know which way that'll come out.
GG
Cancer,
I apologize if you've been confused.
To clarify, you have my express permission not to read my posts.
Or, if you choose, at least not to read them past whatever arbitrary point you deem them longer than your...
GG
GG,
Why do you continue to attack the more conservative candidate out of the big 3 (McCain, Romney, Rudy), more than the less conservative for the GOP nomination in 2008?
Kevin,
Reasonable question as to why there's a greater volume of GG posts re: Romney.
Here's my assessment:
1. My criticisms of Romney lead to lengthy merry-go-round exchanges with Romney defenders on blogs such as this, while my criticisms of McCain and Rudy have not drawn the same. If a half-dozen McCain defenders argued with me every time I criticized his vote against the federal Marriage Protection Amendment, there'd be an equal number of GG "criticize McCain" posts on the web. His defenders, perhaps more wisely than MR's, have chosen not to engage in endless "he said, she said" tit-for-tats that spotlight my opinions.
1. McCain and Rudy are, at least it seems to me, far better known commodities, and neither of them tries to pass himself off (as Romney does) as THE social conservative candidate. McCain flip-flopped on Roe back in '99 or 2000, and he voted against the marriage amendment, and he's ticked a lot of conservatives off with his outrageous McCain-Feingold attack on the First Amendment and arrogant "Gang of 14" thing. Rudy is wrong on ALL social issues. And neither, to my knowledge, is trying to run from their record on those issues, as Mitt clearly is on his. Mitt has been (and in some cases, remains) very wrong on social issues of major concern to social conservative activists, all while claiming to be our champion and feigning shock and umbrance, as do his defenders, that anyone would dare question him. I think that trying-to-fool-us thing warrants special attention, but my opinions wouldn't get near the attention they do if Murph and Jeff and Yoda and Burt and Kristine and you (here) and their MR-defending counterparts at Red State didn't help me out as much as you do.
Agree or not, I've tried to thoughtfully and honestly answer your question.
GG
Gary, Gary, Gary . . .
you think we all sound crazy? although I don't believe in the rhetoric of just trying to write you off as an anti-mormon . . . i'm seeing you much more as just a right-winger that can't get over himself. happens alot with you extremists.
FACT: you will never find a candidate you 100% agree with everything he has done and said (unless you are hoping you are elected)
FACT: you've got to look at the race right now and decide who would best "govern" the US and put your support behind them
FACT: all of us romney-bloggers are going crazy because we can't understand the logical disconnect you show in attacking somone so vigorously that has so much potential to do so much good.
FACT: you are so narrow in your focus without acknowledging all the good things Romney has said and done that are pro-family that it doesn't make sense
FACT: there will be crazy conservatives just like you who will get thiemselves all riled up about romney -- I think the fact that you guys are being so vocal about it now is that you know we can win without you . . . and I think that scares y'all
FACT: Romney has never said that he is the "perfect" conservative. He is trying to position himself as a more conservative option than McCain and Guiliani -- does anyone see a problem with that?? -- because guess what, he is more conservative than those two. So I don't understand your mumbo-jumbo about Romney trying to pass himself off as something he's not.
Kristine
Kristine,
The thing I don't understand is why you or anyone else cares "what" I am.
One guy who blogs once in a while is no threat to MR's candidacy; I can only assume that what you do consider threatening is the truth of MR's record, as more and more social conservatives learn about it.
Interesting, however, that on the one hand, you characterize my views as "extremist," while at the same time insist that Romney really shares my views.
So which is it?
Which of my views do you consider "extremist," and on which ones does Mitt AE (After Evolution) agree with me:
1. Marriage is only between one man and one woman, and it should be constitutionally protected.
2. The lives of prenatal children should be protected.
3. The Boy Scouts are right to protect teenage boys from exposure to individuals who engage in homosexual behavior.
4. Taxpayers should not be compelled to provide spousal benefits to the homosexual partners of state employees.
5. The terms "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" should not be added to federal civil rights laws.
6. Homosexual activists committed to advancing the homosexual agenda via the judiciary should not be appointed to the bench.
Or is it not my views you're characterizing as "extremist," but me, because I refuse to swallow whole cloth the Romney Theory of Evolution and still take exception to those offensive elements of his record on which he hasn't flip-flopped?
My prediction: come 2008, our choices will not be limited to Rudy, John, and Mitt, so you can save the lectures about how social conservatives have no choice but to either pick Mitt or one of those other two.
I'll concede that the new Romney AE is currently packaging himself as more conservative than Rudy or John. (Question is, can we trust the marketing as sincere? You think so. I'm unconvinced.)
Romney BE was comparable to Rudy and MORE liberal than John.
I didn't say you had to pick Rudy, John, or Willard.
I said: "FACT: you've got to look at the race right now and decide who would best "govern" the US and put your support behind them"
I'm not saying you have to give your vote away right now. I haven't. Even if I'm a MR man I cannot wait for the races to come before I make my final decision.
Post a Comment
<< Home