GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
On December 16th, 2007, Mitt Romney talked about control with Tim Russert on Meet the Press and said the following:
MR. RUSSERT: You’re still for the Brady Bill?
GOV. ROMNEY: I supported the assault weapon ban. I…
MR. RUSSERT: You’re for it?
GOV. ROMNEY: I assigned–and I–let me, let me describe it.
MR. RUSSERT: But you’re still for it.
GOV. ROMNEY: Let’s describe what it is. I signed–I would have supported the original assault weapon ban. I signed an assault weapon ban in Massachusetts governor because it provided for a relaxation of licensing requirements for gun owners in Massachusetts, which was a big plus.
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.
At the time, this didn’t get much notice because Romney, as he said, has more or less the same position on guns as President Bush (even though that puts both of them to the left of Senator McCain who opposed both the Brady bill and assault weapons ban). So, color me surprised when I saw what Romney told Glenn and Helen Reynolds on Saturday:
We asked [Romney] about gun control — he says he’ll veto any gun control bills that cross his desk as President, including a renewal of the “assault weapon” ban.
Listening to the podcast, here’s the rough transcript of what he said:
HELEN REYNOLDS: Now, I know that a lot of the gun rights folks aren’t sure about your position on gun rights. Would you pledge to veto any new gun control bills that come across your desk as President?
MITT ROMNEY: Yeah.Yeah, I don’t support any gun control legislation, the effort for a new assault weapons ban, with a ban on semi-automatic weapons, is something I would oppose. There’s no new legislation that I’m aware of or have heard of that I would support. In regards to guns, I think we have enough legislation and should enforce the laws as they exist. I was pleased that when I ran for Governor that I received the endorsement of the NRA and I hope to receive their support now.
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.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Mmmm, the smell of desperation is in the air
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Romney is such a phony hack.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Will McCain give amnesty to the illegal imagrants?
Q: If the Senate passed your bill, S1433, the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill, would you as president sign it?
A: Yeah, but look, the lesson is, it isn’t going to come. The lesson is they want the border secured first. I come from a border state. I know how to fix those borders with walls, with UAVs, with sensors, with cameras, with vehicle barriers. They want the border secured first. And I will do that, and, as president, I will have the border state governors certify those borders are secured. And then we will have a temporary worker program with tamper-proof biometric documents, and any employer who employs someone in any other circumstances will be prosecuted. That means a lot of people will leave just normally because they’re not going to be able to get their job. Then we have to get rid of two million people who have committed crimes here. We have to round them up and deport them. As far as the others are concerned, we were in an ongoing discussion when this whole thing collapsed.
Source: Meet the Press: 2008 “Meet the Candidates” series Jan 27, 2008
The answer would be YES
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
We’ve got quite the selection of candidates, eh?
Hillary ‘08! Sanford ‘12!
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
TLG,
You’d pick sanford over jindal in ‘12?
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
FactCheck: Criticized $3M “bear DNA” study, but voted for it
McCain’s TV ad criticizes an earmark that provided “$3 million to study the DNA of bears in Montana.” This is not the first time McCain has poked fun at the bear project. He first mentioned it on the Senate floor, on Feb. 13, 2003: “One can only imagine and conjure up an idea as to how this might be used. Approach a bear: That bear cub over there claims you are his father, and we need to take your DNA. Approach another bear: Two hikers had their food stolen by a bear, and we think it is you.”
Good laugh lines, maybe, but the USGS’s Grizzly Bear Project didn’t study DNA for paternity tests or forensics. Rather, it explored a means of estimating Montana’s grizzly bear population by analyzing bear fur snagged on barbed wire.
McCain he didn’t actually try to remove the bear project from the bill. He did introduce three amendments to reduce funding, but none removing the grizzly bear project appropriations. And despite his criticisms, he voted in favor of the final bill.
Source: FactCheck.org: AdWatch of 2007 campaign ad, “Outrageous” Nov 20, 2007
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
This kind of issue, along with Romney’s judicial appointments, are the kinds of things that make McCain acceptable. THis is not because McCain has a perfect conservative record, it is because his record is about the same as Romney’s, and McCain does so much better in the polls when matched against Hillary.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
The NRA probably isn’t overly impressed with Mitten’s description of himself as a “life-long hunter” who later admitted he never actually went hunting.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
“But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” John McCain - 1999
Can McCain be trusted to pick pro-life Judges?
The answer would be NO.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
TLG, You’d pick sanford over jindal in ‘12?
I’d need to learn more about Jindal. Right now, our most likely candidates, should we not win this year (and we almost surely won’t) look like Sanford, Pawlenty, Palin — and I’m liking Sanford so far.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
lets also remember mccains role in the wisconsin right to life case, real pro life actions there.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Ah, wait — Jindal — Doesn’t Jindal have a fringe-y anti-abortion view?
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
McCain on Abortion
Supports federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A: I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007
Concerned if women undergo illegal dangerous operations
Q: In 1999, you said, “In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations.”
A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Not sure, i know he’s pro life
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Yeah, just looked it up — Jindal is probably unelectable due to his far-right social conservative views.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks
McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.
Source: Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press Aug 17, 1999
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
All this talk is for nothing the Dems will win in 2008, the republicans are too divided.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Jindal voted to increase the minimum wage. Uh-oh. I am not liking Jindal’s stances so far. He got a B by the Club for Growth. Good, but not great.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I just read all that, and see no flip at all. What in the heck are you talking about? The Mass assault weapons was a different bill at the state level, and as he says it ‘relaxed licensing requirements. The endorsement thing by the NRA has been hashed and rehashed in here and it would have been a better word to use that they supported him rather than endorsed him, because they did send out a flyer favorable to Mitt.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Absent from Values Voter Presidential Debate
Q: You and other members of Congress filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin Right to Life for airing TV ads to encourage the public to lobby their senators to oppose the filibuster of the judicial candidates. Was it really your goal to gag and prevent groups from being involved in the legislative process during the 60 days before a general election, and 30 days prior to a primary election, as your campaign finance reform law required?
SEN. MCCAIN: [absent from podium]
MODERATOR: Silence. Next question.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Wow, I must have been grossly misinformed about Sanford.
I just looked up his record, and so far, it’s not the sort of thing I’ve been hearing about.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Pity
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
He is opposed to abortion in all circumstances, though I think he defines abortion differently than some people. Either way, he can clear it up by saying “I won’t try to ban abortion in cases of rape, incest, or the life or health of the mother…”
And I know there is a rush to jump on to governors for the nomination, but I think there might be a few qualified candidates in the Senate. There is a lot to be said for executive experience, but Thune, Ensign, DeMint, a couple others…they need to be considered.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Ever wonder how McCain has recieved so many endorsments???????? He bought them
McCain’s PAC endorses 19 Senate & 17 governor candidates
Senator McCain is committed to supporting Republican candidates for political office who will provide a potent voice in advancing the reform agenda.
Candidates endorsed for Governor:
Bob Riley (AL)
Asa Hutchinson (AR)
Len Munsil (AZ)
Arnold Schwarzenegger (CA)
Bob Beauprez (CO)
Jodi Rell (CT)
Charlie Crist (FL)
Sonny Perdue (GA)
Linda Lingle (HI)
Ken Blackwell (OH)
Jim Nussle (IA)
Judy Baar Topinka (IL)
Kerry Healey (MA)
Dick DeVos (MI)
Tim Pawlenty (MN)
Mark Sanford (SC)
Rick Perry (TX)
Candidates endorsed for Senate:
Jon Kyl (AZ)
Michael Steele (MD)
Susan Collins (ME)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Mike Bouchard (MI)
Mark Kennedy (MN)
Jim Talent (MO)
Richard Burr (NC)
Pete Ricketts (NE)
Tom Kean (NJ)
Mike DeWine (OH)
Rick Santorum (PA)
Lincoln Chafee (RI)
Bob Corker (TN)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX)
Rich Tarrant (VT)
George Allen (VA)
Mike McGavick (WA)
John Raese (WV)
Source: PAC website, http://www.StraightTalkAmerica.com Dec 1, 2006
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
#7 John McCain does not would want to be associated with Romney’s liberal record as Governor of Massachusetts. Romney got 2 rounds of tax increases passed by the Democratic legislature, mostly corporate taxes, but his 3rd round was cut in half by the Democratic legislature. Romney’s tax increases amounted to $377 million per year according to an article from a Mass. newspaper, the “Patriot Ledger”.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“All this talk is for nothing the Dems will win in 2008, the republicans are too divided.”
If McCain is the nominee, that is OK with me.
—-
“Jindal is probably unelectable due to his far-right social conservative views.”
He could sign some kind of Romney-style pledge to allow exceptions for rape, health, life, and incest. I don’t think it would be too much trouble.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Where’s the flip. He said he doesn’t support new legislation. Renewing an already expired AWB would count as new legislation which he says he opposes.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Will take reform crusade back to the Senate
I love my party. It is my home. Ours is the party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan. That’s good company for any American to keep, and it is a distinct privilege to serve the same cause that those great Americans dedicated their lives to.
But I’m also dedicated to the necessary cause of reform, and I will never walk away from a fight for what I know is right and just for our country.
As I said throughout the campaign, what is good for my country is good for my party. Should our party ever abandon this principle, the American people will rightly abandon us, and we will surely slip into the mists of history, deserving the allegiance of none.
So I will take our crusade back to the Senate and I will keep fighting to save the government, to give the government back to the people, to keep our promises to young and old alike by paying our debts, saving Social Security and Medicare and reforming a tax code that benefits the powerful few at the expense of many.
Source: Announcement of withdrawal from race Mar 9, 2000
HOW MUCH HAS MCCAIN GOTTEN DONE IN THE LAST 8 YEARS?
ANSWER: NOTHING
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
The REAL Truth — Lies! He’s advanced tons of bills!
McCain-Lieberman!
McCain-Kennedy!
McCain-Feingold!
McCain-Edwards-Kennedy!
Anything with a Republican on it!?
No!
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Thanks for “straightening” me out thatlibertarian
Are yo still going for Paul?
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
#24 Your post is a prime example of how desperate Mitten’s campaign plight really is. Republican Senator’s all have PAC’s and they use them in part to make campaign contributions to other Republican Senators who have helped advance their agenda. John McCain as Ranking Member of the Armed Service committee would be required to raise substantial sums for his fellow Republican Senators. The Democrats do exactly the same thing.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
This is troubling…
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
This is typical Romney. Don’t like one of his positions on any given issue? Don’t worry! He’ll take a contrary position eventually.
America’s hunter. What a phony!
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
LOL
“Ever wonder how McCain has recieved so many endorsments???????? He bought them”
And comparing this to Romney? The man who as thrown money at anyone and everyone, in hopes that it will stick?
The problem isn’t that McCain’s record is flawed (though it is). It is that none of the remaining other candidates has a record that isn’t equally or een more flawed. Certainly, Romney matches or exceeds McCain in all of his unorthodox positions:
Global warming? Romney wanted to tax SUVs
Gay rights? Romney was for them before he was against them
Abortion? No comment really needed
Taxes? Remember how supportive he was of the Bush tax cuts? No? Neither do I…
Guns? Here, there, everywhere on this issue
Campaign finance? Advocated a more radical plan than McCain-Feingold (Google it if you don’t believe me…)
Reagan? Was “an independent during Reagan-Bush”
etc etc etc
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Chris
Do the names look familiar?
Spin it how you want - All his big endorsers are on his PAC list HIS LIST, HIS WEB SITE
McCain is just another Washington Politician
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:02 pm
What else is new? Both McCain and Romney are unfit to be the preserver, protector, and defender of the Constitution.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Time for ‘nother test-a-voter pop quiz? This one’s from public radio (bottom of page; via Don Surber).
My stats:
JMac 20
Ron 15
Mitt 15
Huck 14
Grave 8
Barry 5
HillBilly 4
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
John McCain: “I assume that I will get the nomination of the party. I assume unifying our party is a very critical item and I believe we can do that and get everybody together and working together. And I’m confident I can do that.”
Feb 2, 2008
Does Johnny remember what happens when he assume’s
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Gotta read:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3295472.ece
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Thanks for “straightening” me out thatlibertarian Are yo still going for Paul?
Was that gay joke!?
Yes, I’m still going for Paul. But I’m suffering under no illusions pertaining to his chances of winning…
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Of course this is 100% consistent, if somewhat incoherent. Romney said on Meet the Press that, just like President Bush, he would renewed the Assault Weapons Ban if it came to his desk. He now says that he still would have renewed the Assault Weapons ban, if he had been president, but he’s not willing to support such a law at this point, given that it’s a change from the status quo, and the status quo has been successful. Love this position or hate it, it’s quite similar to positions many candidates take on any number of issues.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
This race is depressing.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
TRT: Got any juicy gossip for us on Spears?
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Oops, in my #40 I left out the word “a” after the word “that”.
MarkG — Britney Spears would make a better President than any of the remaining viable candidates, even in the mental state that she’s in right now. That’s the juicy gossip of the day.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Also, LJ, I don’t know if you’ve doctored this transcript or what, but I listened to that interview hours ago, and Romney did NOT say he received the endorsement of the NRA. He said he received the SUPPORT of the NRA, a subtle but meaningful distinction. They didn’t officially endorse him, but they phone banked for his candidacy, a sure gesture of support.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Also, LJ, I don’t know if you’ve doctored this transcript or what, but I listened to that interview hours ago, and Romney did NOT say he received the endorsement of the NRA. He said he received the SUPPORT of the NRA, a subtle but meaningful distinction. They didn’t officially endorse him, but they phone banked for his candidacy, a sure gesture of support.
Um, yeah, it’s also deceitful, because I’m pretty sure that anyone listening to it would have walked away thinking that he meant that the NRA endorsed his candidacy. That’s what “supporting” a person’s candidacy means to most people, including, I’d assume, everyone at this site.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
But, well, that’s Romney and his campaign: deceitful, as always. You’ve got a heavy burden on your shoulders, Matthew E. Miller, being an intelligent person — rationalizing all of Romney’s doublespeak. Must be tough!
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I know it’s hard for McCain and his supporters to be honest but here’s some straight talk for you. Supporting the old assault weapons ban isn’t the same as supporting any of the new legislation floating around. Romney has gone hunting. Not supporting a hand gun registration bill is disturbing to me. 2/3 of NRA members support hand gun registration and the NRA itself proposed a hand gun registration bill, so McCain not supporting it seems crazy in my mind. I think we should know who has handguns, and I think we should do background checks before we hand them out. Mitt DID receive an endorsement from the NRA in that the NRA called it’s members and told them to vote for Mitt. They claimed later that it wasn’t their official endorsment, but if you have an intel processor, and don’t have the intel inside sticker-guess what, it’s still an intel.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
#47 It’s more like striaghting out all people’s twists on Romneys statements. Why would anybody who’s not a Democrat vote for the guy who will destroy the Republican party (McCain)?
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Thatlib
I know you don’t like Romney but if your a libertatian type guy you must hate McCain? He has supported some pretty bad legislation. If he is the nominee I may go with Paul.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Because I don’t trust Romney and I think that anyone that does is willfully deluding themselves..?
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I know you don’t like Romney but if your a libertatian type guy you must hate McCain? He has supported some pretty bad legislation. If he is the nominee I may go with Paul.
I’ve been bashing our party’s nominee, McCain (get used to saying that), like hell on this site for about a week and have been mostly ignoring Romney, who is not the party’s nominee. Haven’t you noticed? I despise McCain. I’d love to trust Romney, but why on Earth should I?
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Huckabee is turning into a joke, kissing Mac’s rear for a job. He must not understand that he is not useful to Mac anymore. It is funny that Huck rants about Romney’s money but Mac and Cindy are the elitist that think they are owed the Presidency
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:39 pm
It has been a tuff year for people who believe in the Constitution of the United States of America
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Huckabee is turning into a joke, kissing Mac’s rear for a job. He must not understand that he is not useful to Mac anymore. It is funny that Huck rants about Romney’s money but Mac and Cindy are the elitist that think they are owed the Presidency
All of the top four (Romney, McCain, Clinton, Obama) think that they’re entitled to the presidency, it seems. Obama, especially, has shown unprecedented hubris in running this year. He’s never really accomplished much of anything that would make anyone think “Hey, that guy would make a great President!” — and yet, he’s running because he’s a strong orator, and the Democrats eat it all up. Clinton goes without saying. Romney’s at least accomplished a lot in his life, but he’s largely been self-funded and that sends a really, really, really bad message. McCain seems to have a degree of arrogance unmatched by the others, like — Don’t you see how great I am, you benighted fools? You don’t deserve me as President!
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
TLG, I appreciate your position. But I’ve come to the conclusion that I won’t ever see my preferred candidate to get within a prayer of getting elected. The years 1996, 2000, and 2004 spring to mind. And even when, as in 2000, I’ve held out some hope, I’ve seen the small-government ideas sacrificed right off the bat.
So to me, it comes down to which of the remaining viable candidates has the combination of past policy positions and especially actions are the least offensive. It comes down to the candidates’ advisers, endorsers, and allies. It comes down to a rough estimation of the candidates’ leadership skills, foremost in terms of communication.
I’d love for a viable candidate to come to the fore with the full backing of the CATO Institute, say, but I know that won’t happen.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:48 pm
At least you’re not for McLiar or McHuckaliar TLG. Thanks you for that at least.
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Is Mitt too dull?
February 3rd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
TLG, I appreciate your position. But I’ve come to the conclusion that I won’t ever see my preferred candidate to get within a prayer of getting elected. The years 1996, 2000, and 2004 spring to mind. And even when, as in 2000, I’ve held out some hope, I’ve seen the small-government ideas sacrificed right off the bat.
There was Rudy…but he ran a message-less campaign. The problem wasn’t with him or his positions, but his delivery.
At least you’re not for McLiar or McHuckaliar TLG. Thanks you for that at least.
McHuckaliar? That’s not even clever! …lol.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
If this doesn’t sell you on Mitt, then nothing will.
http://www.mymanmitt.com/mitt-romney/2008/02/great-illinois-turnout-today-for-mitt.asp
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:07 pm
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
LJ, nice doctoring of the podcast trascript.
Romney DID receive the support of the NRA in his MA race. They gave him a B, and helped him against his opponent, though they didn’t officially endorse him.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Is MarkG to dull?
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Yes.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
What do I win?
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
The VP of USA
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
No thanks-sounds like work.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:36 pm
if you can get it before HUCK
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
I know Huck want’s it but I have a hard time figuring out WHY somebody would give it to him. He brings nothing to the table that I can see. I think McCain would be much more likely to pick another Democrat.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
TRT, you’re not as much fun since they upped your Valium IV drip sometime this afternoon.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
That is true
But Huck has been trying to weasel his way in since NH, the problem for him is McCain just used him to win NH and SC. Now is is of no value to Mac anymore, Psst.. He hasn’t told Huck yet so keep this just between us.
February 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
MarkG
Have you been reading the info on your liberal buddy I’ve been posting for you?
By the way I didn’t know it was Valium I thought Cindy told me it was Percaset
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
As a republican resident of Massachusetts who is a social and fiscal conservitve I will be voting for …John McCain.
Gov Romney is a smart fellow and an able administrator but he reminds me of Lyndon Johnson. It was said of President Johnson, “Lyndon goes the way the wind blows.”
That is Gov Romney all over
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Well, I am glad to have Romney promising to not sign any new AWB. I believe he kept his campaign promises in MA.
Aren’t we wanting McCain to backtrack on some of his stands?
February 4th, 2008 at 1:35 am
We were told that if we voted for a republican in the ‘06 elections that we would get the same old crooked congress. The Dems won and we got the same old crooked congress.
They are all flip flopping except Obama, and he doesn’t stand for anything but change.
None of the above is sounding better and better.
February 4th, 2008 at 3:42 am
LJ: Not only that but Romney’s Democratic opponent for Governor received a better grade from the NRA on gun rights than Romney himself did.
This is funny, because Romney got a “B” from the NRA during his governorship. McCain got a “C+” in 2004.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:21 am
[…] bad weekend for Mitt Romney Posted on February 4, 2008 by Joe Tobacco Yikes. He flips and flops so strenuously on the Glenn and Helen show that you can hear the splashes, and even Glenn comments: […]
February 4th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Hugh Hewitt here, to correct your awful slander against Mitt.
Mitt is solid, Mitt does not flip flop. What he believes today, he has always
believed. If he believed something different in December, he always
believed that too. What are you, an Al Quada agent?
February 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
[…] UPDATE: More here. I’m beginning to question his […]
February 4th, 2008 at 11:05 am
One thing I noticed about people who comment on Romney is that they are not exactly being fair. They read his comments through a predetermined lense. Romney appears to be very intelligent and is very aware of the pending legistlation regarding gun bans and he is aware of thier content. See, the now Democratically controlled congress is writing the NEW legislation that has gun bans for SEMI-automatic guns. Romney is fully cognizant of that fact and correctly states that he is apposed to that NEW legislation and would veto it. This is in no way a flip flop as many are saying. It is very consistent with what he has said in the past. His statements on MTP were about a ban on FULLY automatic weapons and weapons of unusual lethality. This OLD legislation, drafted by in the Repbulican lead congress (now out of power so the bill is defunct) was what Bush was willing to sign and on what Romney was commenting in the MTP interview. For those of you who are 2nd Amendment purists, Romney MTP comments will go against your all or nothing viewpoint. But lets not suggest that this latest comment is a flip flop . That is just intellectually dishonest.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
[…] at Race 4 2008 catches Mitt Romney reversing his position on the federal "assault weapon" ban in the space of […]
February 4th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
[…] who only clearly supported “the surge” after it became a success. I see a guy who is still flip-flopping on the second amendment. I see a guy who has a blandness to him that will be eaten alive by either Obama’s stunning […]
February 8th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Flips on life too!
Romney Fairy Tale:
http://www.ARTLaction.com