Another day, another position. Here he is Saturday, February 2, 2008 on the Glenn and Helen Show:
With the Super Tuesday primaries just a couple of days away, we caught up to Mitt Romney and asked him about gun control — he says he’ll veto any gun control bills that cross his desk as President
Here he is in December 2007 on Meet the Press (you can watch it here):
MR. RUSSERT: So the assault ban that expired here because Congress didn’t act on it, you would support?
GOV. ROMNEY: Just as the president said, he would have, he would have signed that bill if it came to his desk, and so would have I.
Here he is in October 2007 in the Des Moines Register:
“Romney opposes reinstating the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. He does not believe any more federal gun laws are needed but said he would consider signing carefully tailored legislation regulating weapons of ‘unusual lethality or power.’”
In February of 2007 with George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now you’re a member of the NRA.
MITT ROMNEY: Yes, and I know the NRA does not support an assault weapon ban. So I don’t line up on that particular issue with the NRA, either does President Bush. He likewise says he supported an assault weapon ban.
Here he is in 2002 running for governor of MA:
And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state’s strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O’Brien. “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said. “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”
Running for Senate in 1994:
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
Support, support, support, oppose, support, oppose. Don’t like Mitt’s position on something? No need to worry. Tomorrow is a new day.
UPDATE: Instapundit’s interview is getting more and more play. Even Glenn Reynolds himself is questioning Romney’s sincerity. From race2008.com:
That’s a stunning turn around in a matter of 2 months. Nevermind the fact that while running for governor of Massachusetts, he famously stated that “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.”
What’s even more galling is that he repeated the debunked claim here that he received the NRA’s endorsement. Even his own Press Secretary says that Romney is being dishonest.
Romney was never endorsed by the NRA, and didn’t have their official support during his 2002 gubernatorial campaign. The NRA declined to endorse in that race, as was acknowledged by Romney’s spokesman this morning.
“The NRA did not endorse in the 2002 campaign,” said spokesman Kevin Madden, when asked about Romney’s comments.
Not only that but Romney’s Democratic opponent for Governor received a better grade from the NRA on gun rights than Romney himself did.
Filed Under Front Page ·
So he’s the candidate of…dare I say…change?
Does changing postitions over and over make one a liar?
I don’t think so, Daniel. I think it makes him a politician with no core convictions, like most every politician these days (and from the days of old as well). But not a liar.
If SCOTUS grants the correct ruling in Heller vs DC, there should be no objectionable bills crossing the desk in the Oval Office. As long as Mitt nominates the right judges for the federal bench, I don’t really care what his personal opinions are about guns.
He may loathe the rights enunciated in the Second Amendment in his heart, but if he acts to protect, in his civil persona, those rights, then it works for me. I don’t demand ideological purity, but I do demand the honest recognition of the rights as spelled out in our founding documents. In the same way a judge may be repulsed and sickened by someone’s speech and yet is compelled to protect that speech, a public official can and should preserve the rights we have enshrined here and enforce the laws derived from them.
The question is not whether a candidate believes exactly as one wishes, but will they act, or refuse to act, in accordance with those basic principles, even if it is contra their personal opinion ?
If you want to use quotes maybe you should give the full responses, especially when your spewing accusations. This is very disingenuous. The fact is that Romney has taken the same position as the President when asked about the federal weapons ban. He has said every time he’s been asked that he supported the ban, just as President Bush did, and would have signed the legislation, just as President Bush would have if the renewal hit his desk, however since the legislation has expired - he no longer supports it. This proves that he is a peoples President. It’s obvious that the people did not want the ban, that’s why it wasn’t renewed - Romney acknowledges that and has said consistently he no longer supports it.
By the way, the NRA was in full support of the assault weapons ban in Mass. that passed under Romney, but you won’t hear the truth here.
Way to regurgitate the faulty “facts” you read on someones blog somewhere….great job!
Joshluke,
Didn’t “regurgitate” anyone’s blog facts. Those are direct quotes from Mitt. Look at the timeline, do as you wish with it.
Take it with a grain of salt if you wish. Fact is, texpat is probably correct above about bills crossing his desk.
People criticize McCain but at least you pretty much know where he stands. With Romney, you have no idea and that is just the way it is.
texpat,
For the most part I agree with your assessment. We are electing a president and it’s always a crapshoot. Typically, we would look at a guys record and then say, hey, he’ll probably do this because he did whatever.
With Romney, this cannot be done, regardless of the shrill voices in conservative media that are warning against McCain. We are being asked to take at face value his newfound conservative positions.
#5 Josh
This is a group blog consisting of several contributors with often widely varying and oppositional opinions. And do let me emphasize the word, “opinion”, in case that may have escaped you. Additionally, BigJolly properly provided links to each quote to enable any reader to read (or view) the quotes in their full and complete context. We make the assumption here that all of our readers are actually that, readers, since they have managed to get this far. We also assume, here at LST, the folks viewing this page are entirely capable of establishing context since that is the purpose of providing links in the first place.
There is nothing disingenuous in this piece and to construe pointing out a candidate’s public inconsistencies as such is really quite petty. If you would like to offer a counter argument or narrative for Romney’s statements, there is ample room here for serious comment. It’s free and not usually painful.
There are times when quotes are indeed taken out of context. An excellent example was the Bill Clinton quote that one of the ABC blogs (I think) blatantly took out of context last week. But lately it seems more and more people are using the “out of context” cry whenever their particular candidate’s credibility is questioned. If you make such a claim you should explain exactly how the quote was taken “out of context”.
And now BJ, let’s see your expose’ on the positions of the other candidates in this Presidential race. I personally differentiate between hunting weapons, defense weapons and assault weapons. In my opinion your making an issue [as usual] where one doesn’t exist.
Whether an issue exists or it doesn’t is up to each voter, I would think. The point is that Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to have core convictions. He says whatever is expedient at the time. You cannot refute that statement with his record.
If that is not an issue for you, then so be it. It is an issue for me.
As for the other candidates, it appears that only John McCain is viable. Like him or not, he rarely switches positions. Even on the amnesty bill, he hasn’t switched his position - he has said, fine, build the damn fence, but he hasn’t changed his core position.
Gun control is not a deal breaker for me.
Deal breakers for me include immigration, free-speech, and judges.
No contributor is more fair and works harder on LST than BigJolly. His post here is perfectly legitimate and deserves a serious response if one disagrees with it. Mitt Romney, no matter your opinion of his candidacy, has made irreconcilable statements about the Second Amendment controversy. If there are alternative views on the conflicts of the above quotes, then, by all means, let’s hear them.
As for the other candidates, I am sure other threads will be forthcoming in which we can slice, dice and perform autopsies on their public comments. In this place, at this time, on this thread, the subject is Mitt Romney.
About context. I completely understand the argument. I hope that I have not done that in the above quotes, feel free to tell me if I have. If I had included every word in the interviews, the post would have been pages long. Which is why I linked to each.
Believe me, I know the effects of having words taken out of context.
BJ, didn’t you get the memo saying it is not acceptable to mention one candidate without mentioning all the other ones, too ? You have to include the entire policy declarations of all candidates, on all subjects, in every single post you put up.
Politicians don’t change their positions, they change their rhetoric.
Don’t sweat it Big J. You obviously and unintentionally hit a nerve.
The point I was making, texpat, is that Mitt has been consistent in my view on his views concerning gun control. I believe the reader browsing headlines on Google News will come across this piece and will not read the entire context even though links are provided. I believe this piece has an agenda and throughout the comments posted on this piece the author has proven that he has a bias toward McCain. In my view this completely misrepresents the integrity of the man that I have chosen for President, in that context and a complete analysis on everything Romney has said concerning gun control and the 2nd Amendment is not available on this blog. If you would like to provide quotes and policy proposals as well as the NRA’s position on the various bills discussed in this piece, I believe you would be equipped, as well as the author, to judge someones “core convictions” and moral fiber. I believe if you provided the entire story, you would have no choice but to concede that Romney has been consistent with a tendency to gravitate more conservative as time moves forward (as the majority of American citizens do as they grow older). He has not, in one minute defended a liberal stance, then in the next breath say he will be completely against it as McCain and Huckabee have done on a host of issues (IMMIGRATION, TAXES, FORIEGN POLICY). Romney has been the most consistent conservative during this election of the candidates that remain. It’s obvious that objectivity is out the window when someone provides analysis on a Presidential candidates positions in a forum such as this one.
Judging a candidate by what he has done puts McCain in some bad company, his bills are co-named McCain/Feingold, McCain/Kennedy, he is on record supporting open borders, eliminating Guantanamo bringing the Terrorists into this country and our civil legal system (McCain thinks everything belongs in the system). And he has until the last minute fought the passing of the Bush tax cuts, supported not renewing them, raising the capital gains tax, the death tax, and corporate tax, he ought to be debating Hillary for the Democratic nomination.
Now that’s funny.
I don’t think it’s coincidence that the first amendment is related to free speech and the second was the right to keep and bear arms. Consequently, those two are definite deal breakers for me.
#21 hamous
StaceyE listed judges as a priority. If we get the right judicial nominees, the Bill of Rights will be safe and secure. You are right, though, about the ordering. After addressing religion, speech, the press, peaceable assembly and redress of grievances, in that order, within the First, the authors devote a stark, stand alone amendment in the Second to the right to bear arms. No small thing, that gesture.
Mitt may flip flop, but Johnny is a total disaster. As far as my picks go, these guys are the bottom four, so anyone would have to be taken with a grain of salt. It’s just that with McCain, you would be rubbing that salt into an open wound. RP will actually give you a salt shaker. Mitt would try to persuade you to use Mrs. Dash, and Huck would say anyone who uses Mrs. Dash is in league with the devil!
Were not the Stiles and Form Committee, the group to make sure everything was in proper order, the last reviewers, and presenters of Constitution?
#20 BJ
I don’t believe Josh has been here long enough to have a grasp of the different personalities or the collective spirit of Lone Star Times. I learned the hard way, in the past, to keep my mouth shut for a while on a newly discovered blog because, more often than not, my initial impressions got blown out the water. Every weblog has an institutional memory which sometimes causes us to take small shortcuts with our readers. We may neglect to be as clear as should be because of that, and yet, newcomers should have a little patience and try to get the lay of land before making hasty judgements.
Many people would be shocked at the absolutely merciless gauntlet we have forced all Republican candidates through on LST. Sometimes, I think we should be sending invoices over to the DNC for payment. But, hey, that is what conservatives do - eat their own, isn’t it ? While Democrats and liberals argue about strategy, tactics, imagery and symbolism, we on the Right conduct ideological swordfights like Romanesque gladiators.
“As for the other candidates, it appears that only John McCain is viable. Like him or not, he rarely switches positions. Even on the amnesty bill, he hasn’t switched his position - he has said, fine, build the damn fence, but he hasn’t changed his core position.” -BJ
You’re right that’s freakin’ hilarious!
That is clearly not in the Constitution. RP would issue a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to Barbary Coast Pirates to rub salt in the wound on behalf of the United States. We would not be held responsible for whether the salt was kosher ; - )
#21 hamous,
the first amendment sullied by McCain, and Romney a question in your mind about the second, leaves a predicament, for whom to vote.
#28 Indeed.
#26 Josh
If you had been reading LST for the last 6 months, you would know BigJolly is invited to Sunday dinner at Mike Huckabee’s house every week, in spite of the fact he is the reigning Hannukah King.
So now bigjolly’s a shill for McCain… flip-flopper.
texpat, I’m responding to this post right now - not a host of other posts. I’m sure I can find stuff that I agree with, and more that I disagree with. I just find it particularly rediculous to attack someone’s integrity, as the liberal media, and apparently now conservative blogs like to do when some one (such as Romney) is making the most ordinary and acceptable transitions, that most Americans make, as he grows older. In the words of Mr. Romney, I’d rather somone change their position to the right one, than consistently be wrong!
See the update.
I guess now you are going to question Glenn Reynolds integrity, Josh.
perhaps raiderdav says it best!…I’m just going on what has been said today, and BJ posted…
“As for the other candidates, it appears that only John McCain is viable. Like him or not, he rarely switches positions. Even on the amnesty bill, he hasn’t switched his position - he has said, fine, build the damn fence, but he hasn’t changed his core position.”
Now I’ll submit that I can not possibly know if someone took over his keyboard in an attempt to sabotage his position…I’ll give you that much BJ.
joshluke, so in deciding on a President, we are not allowed to examine the historical record they have created?
that’s precisely the type of reporting that I’m talking about….the post of course doesn’t state that the NRA phone banked for Mitt (not his democratic rival, but Romney himself), so that he would win the nomination.
Romney has stated since that even though they didn’t officially endorse him, he considered it an endorsement because of the fact that they phone banked…if that’s not an endorsement (albeit unofficial), I don’t know what is….would you phone bank in favor of a candidate that you didn’t want to win?
duhmoose, that’s not what I’m saying, I’m simply saying you can’t pick and choose and act like you have the entire picture. Isn’t that fair?
Josh
I thought you made some assumptions about BJ and LST earlier that were unfounded and unfair, the very same thing you accuse BJ of doing with Romney. The best thing you can do for Romney is make a solid effort to convince the sizeable number of daily readers on this blog why you believe Mitt is the man for the job. There are many potential Romney voters in this audience who haven’t decided yet.
Don’t waste your powder & buckshot on BJ - he’s just one guy and he’s only 4′9″ tall anyway.
27 good point. Just as long as we do not get drawn into an extended engagement overseas for the stabilization of the salt trade.
Questioning, as I do, whether or not Romney’s newfound Conservatism is genuine or not does not constitute an attack on his integrity.
texpat, that’s fair - I don’t mean to attack. Though, I am very passionate in defending the man I’ve picked because I’ve had the opportunity to be around him, I think he is full of integrity and I believe his life is a testament of it. I agree with basically everything he has grown to stand for and think it unfair to stand back and throw rocks at the conservative movement’s hope in the general election.
#37 Josh
There is a fundamental limitation on what you can do on a blog or any other publication for that matter. The reason we have comments sections after each contributor’s post is so readers can post their corrections, disagreements, additional information, contradicting sources, etc. Sometimes, a contributor here will post a series of events, quotes or news reports as a starting point for discussion and debate rather than a conclusive declaration on an issue or candidate. That is how I perceived this thread. BJ was critical of Romney’s statements on the front page, but did not say: Romney Sucks - Vote McCain !
Josh - Give it a break. Never seen your name here
, and you come on the attack? An opinion is a great thing to have, so is something else. Don’t be that.
#40 monkey
NO BLOOD FOR SALT !!!
jimb, there is an accusation leveled when someone says one day someone is for something and the next he’s against it. The fact is that Romney has been very consistent throughout this campaign, which is something that can’t be said about the other remaining candidates (minus RP), especially the other viable candidate - John McCain.
I am reaching here, but let me ask this - Of what religious persuasion are you, Josh? It has been my experience that most really die-hard Romney supporters I’ve talked to were LDS.
I could be wrong, and I wish to cause no offense, but I’m curious…
Josh, we don’t always throw rocks, sometimes we throw bananas. I appreciate your passion and things can get very heated here, but at the end of the day, we remain friends. No one who thinks politics is the most important thing in life will survive on LST without being the object of excessive derision and ridicule. We’re just regular folks and try to keep things in perspective.
What you consider an accusation, I consider a healthy examination of the man’s statements. Looking at a man’s history, based on his own words, to decide whether or not his current positions ring true is eminently fair.
Josh, December to February are certainly within the time frame of this campaign.
texpat, now you’re arguing semantics. Is it not obvious that BJ is not a Romney guy from this post? And is it not obvious that this post is to contest Romney’s integrity? I think if this post was seeking to just offer debate, there would be much different tone.
p.s. I realize you can’t post everything on a blog. That’s my point - why throw objectivity out the window when you can’t give the entire picture? If you can only show a snippet of something, then be objective about it, and let the details be hashed out in the comments. btw - I’m not a blog novice - I post on many blogs, I am new to this one however, so thanks for the welcome!
I will probably cast my vote for Romney. However, that doesn’t mean I won’t question him right down to the wire. I’m looking for good arguments to convince me further my decision would be correct.
Josh,
It’s true - I’m not a Romney guy. It’s also true I’m not a McCain guy.
It seems to be true that I’m going to have to pick between the two of them.
Am I the only guy in the world that thinks Mitt tends to change positions? Is it supposed to give me comfort that it was 13 years ago that he said he was to the left of Teddy? He’s older now and wouldn’t say that now? 13 years ago, he was 47 years old. How old does one have to be to know that you can’t be to the left of Teddy?
jimb - I’m glad you asked. No, I’m definitely not LDS. I grew up in a Pentecostal Holiness church and now go to an Inter-denominational church. I’m a Bible believing Jesus follower (as now-a-days Christian can easily be misapplied). I definitely do not agree with the LDS, but that aside, I believe Romney is the best leader in the bunch!
BJ - I believe he’s been consistent the entire time when you take his quotes in the context of what they’re said. If he misspeaks he has always come out and correct the record…to me that’s integrity, to me that takes a lot of guts - especially in the highly skeptical world we live (rightly so).
Show me where I’ve taken them out of context. Listen to Russert grill him, then listen to his answer to Helen.
No way that I’ve taken that out of context.
#51 Josh
Your point on objectivity is accepted, but we are partisans here. This blog is a forum for our individual prejudices and biases, especially when it comes to candidates. The most passionate and heated debates on LST have actually been between the front page contributors here. We’ve had a single thread comment section run to 700 comments in the past.
(I believe 700 was the record. ???)
Josh
Also, the only thing that truly unites LST staff is an invasion of the followers of he-whose-name shall-not-be-mentioned.
WOW! Okay, my 2 cents:
Vote Romney, Not McCain
For the purpose of discussion I was a Fred Thompson fan. I{n my opinion he was the only ‘true’ conservative of the bunch. When Fred left the race I found myself wondering who would be the next best candidate. You can wonder whether or not Romney has flip-flopped on some issues; that’s for each to decide. However, McCain [as it has been stated] has not. His positions have remained close to those of a Democrat. The issues have been listed here, but one needs to add McCain-Lieberman to the list. Do we really need to add $.50 a gallon to gas?
BJ - where is that quote? I believe you’re referring to his quote about gay rights? Which btw was about jobs, not marriage (as he even told the Log Cabin Repubs and another gay rights group, who’s name I can’t remember at the moment that he was not for gay marriage). He fought tirelessly in opposition to the gay marriage legislation from the bench, and is very much for a marriage amendment (that’s part of his platform “strong families”)
As for his stance on abortion - there were two very clear turning points in his life. He grew up in the very Pro-Life LDS, and was privately and publicly pro-life, until an in-law died of an illegal abortion. This deeply personal change was wrong (as he now acknowledges), as after this he became publicly pro-choice, and ran as such in the 93 and 02 campaigns, thus before being elected governor he promised not to repeal pro-choice laws. After he was faced with expanding abortion laws - he did the research at the urging of pro-life groups and came under the conviction that embryos are people too.
Some blame him (I believe unfairly) for the current legislation not being overturned when it comes to abortion. He takes pride in fulfilling promises and made the people of Mass. a promise not to do away with their current abortion laws. When it came to expanding abortion laws he vetoed every one of them (I believe if I’m not mistaken there were 4 or so pieces of legislation that provided for expanding abortion that were vetoed under Romney’s administration).
Indeed, Global Warming (caused by humans) is a fallacy and the Goracle’s way to screw the US because they didn’t elect him President. There is GW, but it’s caused by the sun (duh) and it’s expulsion of cosmic waves, causing the most prominent of all “Greenhouse” gases”: H20, or more commonly called:…are you ready….CLOUDS.
BJ - he is saying the same thing in each recent quote when taken in context - there is no difference! He says he would have signed the legislation just as Bush would have (Does the NRA now think Bush is against them? Do you think Bush wants to take your guns?). Now that the renewal has passed, and the bill has changed, Romney doesn’t want to renew debate about it, and doesn’t support the federal ban, one of the reasons being that it is gravitating increasingly more to the left and becoming more and more unconstitutional. In fact in the Tim Russert interview he said he wanted to change things to make it easier for someone to get guns (make waiting periods shorter, and bring the background checks into the 21st Century).
#45 texpat
There is an international cabal of salt traders that would like nothing more that to undermine our soverignty by manipulating the international salt markets.
Okay, Josh, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that. I’d note that you’ve failed to address the update above, where he repeated again the false assertion that the NRA supported him.
As for abortion, I believe as well that Mitt is pro-life, at least mostly. And that is far better than Hillary or Obama.
On gay-rights, we’ll have to agree to disagree again. Go through the timeline on homosexual marriage in MA and if you don’t think he could have done more to stop it, fine. Is he to the right of the 2 Dems? Absolutely.
josh, can you support, with citations, your claim that Romney has been consistent? It seems even his campaign is running on the idea that he has “grown into” his conservative ideas.
#63 - Add to that the coastal states’ refusal to let us reclaim salt from the seas and we’re in a world of hurt.
Freddoso and Levin are arguing Romney’s consistency problem as we speak.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2Y4NjQ3ZjIwOTVlZTYwZjJlNDEyOTIzNjJiNzk5NDM=
Bwahahahahahahaha…
BigJolly, closet Buchananite, does exemplary job for LST creating controversy about every candidate while secretly planting subliminal isolationist pro Buchanan thoughts.
BJ - refer to post #36
duhmoose - refer to posts #18 and #42
So, Jolly, please let me ask simply and respectfully; who’s consistancy plays better for the Conservatives (and our Today’s Values and Issues)–Romney or McCain?
Obviously I think I know your answer, and you know mine–but TODAY (the most recent) which of the two do you think ids better for Conservatives? We’re still in the primary, not the GE, so this is about where the (R) party will go.
#68 Nat:
Josh, I missed that. Apologies.
The fact remains that it wasn’t an endorsement and his spokesman confirmed it wasn’t an endorsement. Yet Mitt repeated it as an endorsement because his perception is that it was. Is that a good thing in your mind?
One more thought–both RP & huckabee should drop out, especially RP, his 5-10% would have made the difference for Romney in SC & FL. Huck is spoiling for McCain because he hates Romney, but I think his floks will mostly go Romney.
BJ, with all do respect to you and Freddoso, flip flopping in a time of war on whether you do or don’t support the troops is vastly different than flipping on abortion…
I’m not sure Kent. I’ve always been of the trust the devil you know rather than the one you don’t variety. If that answers your question.
But I said months ago and it remains true today that I think Romney is the brainiest of the bunch. FWIW.
responding to 72, yes that is an accurate assessment in my mind. Romney doesn’t contend that it was an official endorsement. I have no problem with Romney taking a phone bank (where the NRA asks people to vote for him) as an endorsement!
Fred Willard Thompson, supporter of McCain/Feingold and friend of John McCain, was John’s stalking horse. John couldn’t have done it without him.
Nonsense. These are the primaries. Voice your opinion, let it be heard. Write in Fred, Duncan, Tom, etc.
In one thread, you guys are arguing not to vote for the guy with an R behind his name, in this one, don’t vote for anyone that might cause your guy to lose.
Very well, Jolly, your statement doesn’t really (but that’s okay, I understand)–becasue I’m all to aware of the two devils I don’t want in, but the other being somewhat unknown gives me hope. Does that retrun the sentiment. IMHO
Josh,
With all due respect, more human beings are killed yearly via the meat grinders called abortion clinics than in most wars.
And McCain is probably the single biggest reason that we stayed in Iraq and executed Petraeus’ surge, claiming victory rather than slink home in defeat. And yeah, we should remember that.
Jolly, you have never heard me suggest NOT voting R–even in the GE. My point is right now this is between Romney and McCain–at least until tomorrow’s over–If there is no stopping MCCain (heaven forbid) after tomorrow, then by all means write in whomever your little ol’ heart desires, but with the delegates being so critical (again, depending on tomorrow–and I feel it won’t be over) one should vote either McCain or Romney, so the Party knows what the Majority of the state wants. again, IMHO
BJ in response to 78 - Primaries are more about the future than you are letting on…as they typically decide who and who won’t run in the GE. I deffinitely don’t think that a RINO is the best bet for the GOP.
…if you want to talk about flip-flopping, the front runner is the king. Reagan Repub. to possibly becoming a democrat, back to Reagan Repub.? Seems that conservatives, even the ones for the Huckster should be more against McCain than Romney!
I admire his fortitude in stand when others cowered (in Nam and in the Seante regarding the surge–of course some of the other things he did in making that stand were’nt all that concentric); But, that’s it Jolly ever thing else has undercut the Conservative’s desire and wishes.
YES you must give the Republicans a fighting chance to win. Vote Hillary in the primaries. Then shut up and vote for whomever has the (R) behind their name in the general. That is how it is done ain’t it?
I just about tossed my cookies when I heard on a “conservative” talk show the “moderator” repeat over and over again….
Really sad when the main reason to vote for a Presidential candidate is just to vote against someone, while in the same breath complaining how this line up of Republican candidates are so far from the principles I believe in.
Frum is on Prager right now, might be something to listen to.
BJ in response to 80 - So why does Romney’s flip to Pro-Life perturb you so badly? Is that not what we want? Do you honestly beleive he won’t be an advocate of the unborn? You honestly believe that he is loading the American people with lies when he says one of his top priorities is to overturn Roe V. Wade?….now we’re getting somewhere!
I may be mistaken, but I don’t think you’ve ever heard me say to vote against anyone. I said vote for the one that you like. In the general election, I won’t be voting against Hillary or Barack. I’ll be voting for McCain or Romney because they are closer to my positions.
So what if they don’t perfectly align with my issues? Hell, I don’t even align perfectly with my issues.
BJ - p.s. abortion is sharply declining each and every year because the pro-life movement stands for truth and the unborn are people too. Way to welcome politicians to the movement!…Everyone who converts must be a liar.
I stand by my argument. Taking a position against American troops as John Kerry did, is vastly different than being a convert to the Pro-Life movement!!!
No, Josh, I do not believe him when he says he will be an advocate for the unborn. It would be great if his position had advanced that far but I don’t think it can given his initial reason for wanting abortions to be safe and legal - the death of a close friend. That will always be in the back of his mind. I do not think he will expand abortions but he will not be an advocate for eliminating abortions.
The Democrats are not worried that Obama or Hillary will be able to defeat McCain, however the Republicans are worried whether McCain can beat either of the Democrats.
Looks like McCain will be the repub nominee.
2 questions:
1) Will Barack beat Hillary tomorrow?
2) Can McCain beat either Barack or Hillary.
I think Barack will be the Dem nominee and that he can win the general in the fall.
What was wrong with that one HAL–there wasn’t one bleep or ++ in the whole thing–probably I was giving Sqauwk trouble for 84–
84: Sqauwk–I love ya’, man, But, that’s the most asinine approach, Vote for HRC or the Dems, along with those that want the US to tank on the Dems term.
So what is your real suggestion that we do, then? STB? You never made comment on my suggestion on Saturday, what of that? You continually make statements that there’s nobody to support; it sounds like you’re willing to allow the US to go socialist with the DEMS winning, what do we do then? Armed Revolt?
No Republican can win without the Conservatives and they will not support McCain.
90 Nat
I agree with you. I think Hillary would take Barack as VP, but I do not believe Barack will take Hillary as his VP. The best shot the repubs have is if McCain gets the nomination, but I don’t think it’ll be enough unless Barack gets “swiftboated”
I’ll say it again:
It is a perfectly honorable and rational American tradition to vote against a candidate. In acknowledging the imperfections of democracy, it is occasionally necessary to minimize damage to the Republic when improving it is not possible.
Kent
It seems to me that I just made my suggestion at what you should do, didn’t I?
The Republicans suck, I do not think they can win if they go heads up against Obama. So….
1. Vote Hillary in the primary
2. Then YOU can vote for the (R) is the general.
The Hate Hillary vote oughta make up sufficiently enough the millions of us that are gonna skip the box.
Please note that I do not support sitting out completely.
Bigjolly
#87
I do not believe I said that you did.
In fact in my comment I said that the Republicans should be given every chance to win. I then went on to give my suggestion as to what one may do and then made an additional observation about a radio talk show host.
66 hamous
Well of course, all thir governors are members of the Hat and Clothes fraternity. I hear they are run by the Club of Toledo. Salt reclamation will only be allowed on the East coast of Africa and coordinated out or Rangoon, thus the continued violence and refusal of the international “community” to get involved.
my typing sucks today. sorry.
96 Texpat Are you the only one on this blog that doesn’y yell? Thank you for your input.
Mine too
Texpat is much too dapper to yell.
I don’t see “millions” skipping the box from a Republican standpoint. This election is bigger than that in the minds of many.
Interestingly enough, I’m starting to hear the “skip the box” sentiment from the Democratic camp, as well. Shows just how far left some of them have moved…
BJ - I’ve got to say that is appalling to me. I don’t understand how someone can be so cynical of those people that have changes of heart on this issue that we hold dear. I find it kind of strange too that you didn’t respond to the facts that abortion is declining steadily. This is a battle for the hearts of people and we are winning. Lets not punish the converts by calling them liars!
I’m not calling Romney a liar. I have said that I believe he is pro-life. You asked if I thought he would be an advocate - he won’t be.
Let me ask you this. If Romney was now an advocate, why did he allow Planned Parenthood a permanent seat on the advisory board of his forced health care plan in MA? An advocate would have vetoed that bill.
JimB
#104
From a Republican standpoint, I guess one hears what they wish to hear. From a Conservative standpoint the story is much different. Just sayin.
These are politicians. Some level of cynicism when someone claims to have “seen the light” is warranted, and I certainly don’t think that would be unfair. If that constitutes an attack, then so be it.
#104 jimb, be glad to recommend a good optometrist.
_ _ McCain believes Global Warming and will support a 50 cent gasoline tax increase, he thinks we belong is some knees to the chin, don’t have children because they won’t fit car, any and all the other lamebrain junk science concepts, and oh no, we’ll not drill at ANWAR.
See Sqauwk that’s the asinine thing–voting for HRC in the Primary gives McCain one vote that isn’t for Romnewy to keep McCain form getting the nom. Then, you still have to vote (R) in GE, but we already know your position on that.
I still don’t see how that equates to “millions” skipping the box. I see it breaking down this way:
Some will be completely disenchanted with the whole thing (on both Left and Right) and just stay home.
Some will go to vote, and skip the box for President. Again, a small subset of both Left and Right seem to be voicing this opinion.
Others will vote, and they’ll fill in every box, even if there isn’t a perfect candidate. This will be the majority of those who vote.
In any case, I don’t see “millions” of likely, regular voters skipping the box in the Presidential election. There will be those who are disaffected enough to do so, but millions? I think that too many people think that there’s too much at stake.
109: Nat, indeed, again, he said last week, that he would never, ever, ever, allow drilling in ANWAR, it would be like drilling in the Grand Canyon or the Everglades–(OWTTE™).
JHow much more Lib do you have to be–and before anyone says Bush has bought into it–he has ONLY acknowledged Global Increase (I think that’s the word, he doesn’t say Warming) and has never attributed it to humans, only that we should clean up the air and get away from our reliance on oil (shocking as it is).
Also, I believe McCain is against Nuclear Power as well. I RMC!
EKP is on XM40 KBFH right now.
109 - all I said is that I don’t see millions of people skipping the box in the GE. Wasn’t even talking about McCain specifically.
Does appointing strict constructionist judges account for being an advocate for the unborn? I believe so. The bottom line is that if you say “nuh uh” when someone says he will work to overturn Roe V. Wade, then you are calling him a liar. Working to overturning Roe V. Wade would qualify Romney as being an advocate for the unborn.
ELPELPELPELP
Or go here and open Rock, then go near the bottom XM Deep Tracks