Romney: Won't beat Clinton by acting like Clinton

flip flop, flip flip, flop! flip flop flop....flop flip flop, flip flop!

It amazes me that all of the top GOP candidates had scheduling conflicts and couldn't make it to a debate at a predominantly black college….

And yet virtually every one of them has found the time to address these “Values Voters”.

That says a LOT about them.

Just say NO to Giuliani

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzxCkorzlss

He should have shorten his statement to we won't beat Hillary. A flip-flopper, a cross dressing scumbag and an AARP poster child. The GOP is in BIG TROUBLE.

Mitt’s church, the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) has been often misunderstood by Evangelical preachers in the past . . Some accused the Church of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . .

http://MormonsAreChristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early (First Century) Christianity's theology relating to baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement. Mitt’s church believes in the Jesus of the New Testament, who prayed to his Father in Heaven in the Garden of Gethsemane, not the Jesus portrayed in the creeds of the 4th Century.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres to Early Christian (New Testament) theology more closely than other Christian denominations. . Perhaps the reason Evangelical preachers promoted this mis-representation was to protect their flock (and their livlihood). It is encouraging to note that Evangelical preachers appear now to have a moral and competent president as a priority..

Carl L,

What do you expect with the current and corrupt campaign situation we have? Candidates must spend their time, money and resources in the places that will help them most in the primaries. Do you really think it would benefit any Republican frontrunner to attend a debate that wasn't nationally televised and wasn't predominantly attended by potential Republican-primary voters?

Now, if you were talking about someone that had already been elected as president, then you would have a good argument. But until that time, candidates have to reach out to those that will help them the most come election time… and that means going to the same old well time and time again.

-Steve

Yes, the Republicans should certainly have pandered to Black America by showing up for a pseudo-debate being moderated by one of their dedicatedly deranged political enemies. It would have made it more difficult for their critics to come up with cheap talking points - though something else would have been found, without a doubt.

Carl L,
Robert [sheets] Byrd (D) forgot to talk at that college too, back when he was with the K.K.K. or yesterday,or sometime soon.
But, The Republicans debate on C.N.N---M.S.N.B.C---C.N.N.B.C and all mover the tube, but the dems won't debate on FOX NEWS....
Dems= Bak..bak,Bak,Bak!
CHICKENS!!!!
Good luck..Carol L!

Paulo

Flip Flop? I think not. Everything Romney said at this speech he has been taught since he was five years old. He always opposed abortion personally but had a reluctant libertarian approach in Massachussets to abortion which has evolved into a conservative approach he clearly feels unconflicted about. Other than abortion, if you compare his 1994 Senate Campaign brochure Romney to his positions today, Romney is clearly the most consistent of ANY candidates in his views over the last 13 years. If you want to see a serious flip flopper google "Hillary Clinton Flip Flops": now there is a fish out of water. As far as Romney and other's not going to the Black college debate--unfortunately a candidate has to make tough decisions about where to spend his time. Appearing at a college where less than five percent of the faculty and students report themselves as conservative is a waste of their precious time. It is too bad you so easily take offense at the wise use of time and impute some kind of racism of evil. Your quickness to do so speaks volumes as to the death of common sense in so many Americans.

He always opposed abortion personally but had a reluctant libertarian approach in Massachussets to abortion which has evolved into a conservative approach he clearly feels unconflicted about.

This statement says to me that Romney will do or say anything to get elected.
And I thought the "Values Voters" he's going after don't believe in evolution.

"Flip Flop? I think not. Everything Romney said at this speech he has been taught since he was five years old. He always opposed abortion personally but had a reluctant libertarian approach in Massachussets to abortion which has evolved into a conservative approach he clearly feels unconflicted about. Other than abortion, if you compare his 1994 Senate Campaign brochure Romney to his positions today, Romney is clearly the most consistent of ANY candidates in his views over the last 13 years."

Posted by: DLounsbury | October 20, 2007 3:53 AM

Guess again Dnutball.

This is bad for Romney. We can now add the environment to the litany of issues that Mitt Romney suddenly flip-flopped on in the past few years, once he decided he wanted to run for president. But it's worse than that. Remember how Romney now claims that his views on stem cell research have changed (he's now opposed) because of a shocking personal experience? Well, he claimed the same thing a few years ago as justification for why he supported stem cell research - yes, another shocking personal experience.
And in many cases, he said his commitment had been cemented by watching the suffering of someone dear to him: a grandchild whose asthma left him worried about air pollution; his wife's multiple sclerosis, which had him placing hope in embryonic stem cell research; the death of a distant relative in an illegal abortion, convincing him that the procedure needed to remain legal.
All of Romney's liberal views were based on shocking personal experiences, then he decided to run for president and came up with new shocking personal experiences that could justify him wooing the far-right of the Republican party. This guy is a snake.

Oh yeah, more on the snake being uber pro-gay just four years ago.
He met gay-rights activists on their turf, in a restaurant attached to a popular gay bar, and told skeptics he would be a "good voice" and a moderating force within his party.
Then there's this:
"There's a benefit to simplicity. I'm a strong believer in stating your position and not wavering," he said at the 2002 meeting with the group, according to notes taken by then-NARAL officer Nicole Roos that were private until being shared with the Los Angeles Times.
Sure is.

Is the following fictional press release a flashback to actual events that occurred in 1968, or a prediction of events that will yet occur in 2008?

Gov. Romney's once promising presidential campaign ended badly today. Romney showed tremendous promise early in the race, but lost ground after admitting to a change of heart on one of the most important moral issues of our day. Romney never recovered from the setback and he stumbled across the Republican finish line in sixth place.
If you recognized it as a flashback, you're right. It's a press release that could have been written in 1968 when George Romney, a former governor of Michigan, competed for the Republican presidential nomination. Romney was an early favorite, but his campaign crashed and burned when he changed his position on the Vietnam War. The campaign might have survived the fact that the once hawkish Romney turned against the war, but his lame explanation for the reversal was even more troubling than the reversal itself. Romney's statement that his original support for the war was the result of "brainwashing" by pro-war generals doomed his campaign. Not many voters were comfortable with the possibility that their president might be susceptible to brainwashing.

On the other hand, if you thought the fictional press release was a prediction of what might yet occur in 2008, you might also be right. Mitt Romney, the son of George Romney, is following in his father's political footsteps. He recently completed a term as governor of Massachusetts and has launched a campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.

There is certainly much in the distinguished father's life that should be emulated by his son. But it should be clear to anyone – even a son – that the senior Romney's flip-flop was one step any presidential candidate should avoid, not emulate. Yet Mitt's recent reversal of position on abortion reminds us once again that sons often seem destined to repeat the mistakes of their fathers.

Mitt Romney's change of position on abortion has been well-documented and acknowledged by Romney himself. In his two Massachusetts campaigns – a failed 1994 U.S Senate bid and a victorious 2002 gubernatorial effort – Romney unabashedly presented himself as a pro-choice candidate. For example, in response to a 2002 campaign questionnaire, Romney wrote:

"I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

But in late 2004, Romney had a change of heart on abortion. It was triggered by a meeting with experts to help him better understand stem cell research. He explained it in a recent National Review Online interview:

"At one point, the experts pointed out that embryonic stem cell research should not be a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. … it just hit us hard just how much the sanctity of life had been cheapened by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality."

It's a very troubling conversion story. If Mr. Romney was shocked by the fact that a 14-day-old embryo created in a test tube might be destroyed, what in the world had he been thinking while millions of naturally created embryos were destroyed through abortion in the years between 1994 and 2004? In that decade, Romney openly supported the legal destruction of more than 10 million embryos that had advanced well beyond 14 days of life. Most were 45 to 90 days old, but many had advanced to nearly six months, and a rare few even beyond that.

Romney arrived at his pro-life decision in such a backwards manner that it's difficult to take his explanation seriously.

So, what does this conversion story tell us about Mitt Romney?

Is he a political opportunist willing to take one side of a life and death issue when seeking liberal votes and quite willing to take the other side of the same issue when seeking conservative votes?

Or is he someone who adopted a political position on a moral issue without giving any serious thought of his own to the life and death implications of the position he adopted?

Sound familiar? It should. It's the same two possibilities voters pondered about George Romney back in 1968. Either way, it's a pretty damning mistake for a presidential candidate to make.

And a very interesting example of like father, like son. p.s. yet another mindless comment from the ever entertaining brainwashing (or low IQ) Victim Paulo.

When Hillary wins the nomination, the republicrites are going to be in BIG trouble. They have been sliming her since Bill started running for his first term, and have been at it non-stop since. Think about it, 15 years of slamming, trashing, distorting, destroying, doing everything they can to drag her into their slime pit. Americans have heard it so long, so loud, they see it as purely background. No matter how hard the repubics try to defeat her in the election, all they have is sameo sameo. And its all background noise to all but the dead ender 26%.

Dear America,
Still looking for your choice in Presidents and Spouses? Look at the person first, and their personal success in life. Wouldn't you agree after examining all the candidates, regardless of your political convictions that, "that person", based on the visual and documented evidence of life and family that, "that person" is one of the finest living role models for young Americans to emulate when raising a family, dedication and success in business and politics and finally being there as a loving spouse and family "person".

The unwavering faith,leadership and followthrough in pursuit of what is good and wholesome in the human condition.

Based on that information alone, if "that person" can do that for family and friends and be so successful in life and in honest leadership then I want, "that person" to do that for America. Wouldn't you agree?

Who is that Candidate? I really don't need to tell you, do I?
You already know who it is?

"That person" and his family emulate the wholesomness and honest leadership that we all yearn for in America.

If there ever were true role models to have in the White House, it would be Mitt and Ann Romney.
Lets make it happen.

Swindler talks about George Romney being brainwashed by pro-war generals back in 1968.
quote: "Not many voters were comfortable with the possibility that their president might be susceptible to brainwashing."

Seems to me that this would eliminate almost all of the Democrat candidates because they all claim they were misled (brainwashed) about WMD's in Iraq.

RNCBS: As far as Republicans sliming Bill and Hillary goes, I think the former first couple have been doing a wonderful job of sliming themselves for years. They swim in slime.

"That person" and his family emulate the wholesomness and honest leadership that we all yearn for in America.

If there ever were true role models to have in the White House, it would be Mitt and Ann Romney.
Lets make it happen.

Posted by: Ed | October 21, 2007 10:17 AM

Robot for president!