Your turn at the Soapbox

He doesn't understand that soldiers are real people.
He doesn't understand the difference between friend and foe.
He's clumsy discussing nuclear warfare.
He doesn't understand geography.

Our military is having success in Iraq......what does Obama want to do? Take them out of course.........no, not home necessarily, but to Pakistan, a nation of 170 million muslims who would make Iraq look like a walk in the park. Obama would successfully crush the morale of our armed forces more than the Dems already have.

Pakistan is working with us. Instead of threatening our allies, why can't he promise support? I appreciate Mitt Romney's comments stating that Obama wants to have tea with our enemies and blow up our friends, going from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.

When asked about using nucs....Obama was absolutely clumsy in stating his policy.....it was like he never even thought about it before (see "Obama the Orator" below). How can anybody want this guy as CIC? Honestly?

Does Obama have a clue about the importance of Pakistan? How does he think we get supplies to our armed forces in Afghanistan? Through Iran......a teleporter perhaps......FedEx?

Madame Hillary has never looked so good.

This is what the National Journal had to say about the state of things:

They are putting Thompson behind Mitt for good reason. And Mitt is tied with Rudy for good reason.

The rankings are not consistent with the polls........because the truth of the matter is Mitt's a brilliant strategist with charisma. He is someone who will fight big government, big spending, and will fight for family values.......that message is connecting with a lot of people.



While the video lacks a plan, I'm pleased that my candidate is the first to put out an ad addressing the moral decline of our nation..........Mitt is a true family man who has our children's well-being as a concern.

.... that's where he goes.

I don't think it is a sin to change your mind. In fact, I think we should have more politicians who are able to think for themselves rather than supporting tired policy (and rhetoric) that is ineffective, outdated or downright wrong (ahem- Iraq). However, I want a president who is willing to stand for what he/she believes in and won't change their morals if it is politically expedient. I don't want someone who is the proverbial chaff, blown about by every wind of political doctrine.

So let’s face the facts folks. Mitt has labeled himself a conservative and has done so for a while, that I will grant and that doesn’t bother me. What does bother me is that he is willing to change his views to get elected. Arnold is considered a conservative even though he is all over the map on issues. Sticking to his guns (no pun intended) has only helped his recent popularity. Mitt, on the other hand was someone I would have supported, had he not buckled to political pressure and come up with some stupid story about cloning, that has nothing to do with the issue by the way, to make himself more appealing to the Falwells of America and the conservative right. Here’s what he said during the first debate of this year. Prepare to be stunned and thrilled by this brilliant explanation of why he was suddenly enlightened to the evils of abortion.......(wait for it.....wait for it)

"About two years ago, when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far. It's a "brave new world" mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind."

Wow. That just could be the worst excuse for selling your morals to a political party that I have ever heard. He succeeded in using a literary allusion and a buzz-phraze in the same sentence but ended up sounding canned and trite. Nice try at a conversion story, Mitt, but, come on! I’m a little disappointed really. He’s a smart, well-spoken guy, couldn’t he come up with something better than cloning and a Brave New World? What happened to the meaningful stories about your parents pro-choice stance, that story about your aunt? Where did that go and what idiot on your campaign team thought up Brave New World? Whoever it was, fire them quick! Pretty soon you’ll have people labeling children’s books Communist Manifestos (Just kidding, it is a pretty odd book).

Was he pro-choice? There is no argument there, he was pro-choice as late as 2002 when he was running for Governor. He filled out a Planned Parenthood questionnaire with the following responses.

Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade? YES

Do you support state funding of abortion services through Medicaid for low-income women? YES (Can you Rudy? James, didn’t you say you wouldn’t vote for Guliani because of this same reason?)

In 1998 the FDA approved the first packaging of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning after pill." Emergency contraception is a high dose combination of oral contraceptives that if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, can safely prevent a pregnancy from occurring. Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception? YES

There are many more quotes from his time in Massachusetts in both of his campaigns where he made his pro-choice perspective quite clear.

Now that we have established that he was pro-choice, for good reasons, reasons that I agree with, I want to explain why that bothers me.

Few members of the church are brave enough to agree with Roe v. Wade even though it is in perfect agreement with the gospel. I feel the same way about abortion that Mitt used to. It is a moral question for me, not one that I am going to change to fit the needs of a candidate. Mitt didn’t have the spine to do the same thing. He gave up a moral stance to get votes. He’s just another slick politician with overdone hair.

No matter how you twist it, the man was pro-life, or at least pretending to be. Either way, he was putting on a show to get votes. Which is just what his advisor, Michael Murphy has admitted.

In 2005 he fessed up and said "he's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly."

What does Mitt stand for? That depends on what will get him elected. Take gay marriage. While I won’t get into the same details as the abortion flop, Mitt did make himself out to in the corner of gays and lesbians. He might not have been forthcoming about what he would/ wouldn’t do but he did want to become governor of Massachusetts and had to convince the voters that he leaned to the left on social issues.

There might be some good reasons to vote for the guy, but none of them have convinced me so far. He might be Mormon, but when you get past all the talk, he’s just another politician who would bend over backwards to serve his party but won’t stand for what he believes if it will hurt him in the polls.

YES!
This is Stuff From 1994.

The ONLY thing that I have found that could remotely suggest flip-flopping is Mitt's recent stance on abortion.

Gun rights..........nothing has changed, except now he is a member of the NRA
Gay rights...........nothing has changed
Taxes...................He knew it was unrealistic to sign a no-tax pledge running for Governor of Taxachusetts--anyone who would do such is a gimmicky fellow. Besides, actions speak louder than words--did he raise taxes in Massachusetts?
Recent Conservatism............he was NEVER a liberal Republican--look above and tell me in what way he was a liberal?
Immigration.........nothing has changed

Josh, I'm officially calling you out. You have called Mitt a flip-flopper. Please justify it. I plan on knocking down whatever you propose. You're much better at debating, but you won't be able to debate against the facts.

In conclusion, MSM is biased and ignorant. They will do whatever necessary to take down a conservative with promise and a record of accomplishments. Have you heard the phrase "a thousand lies makes a truth." We've heard that Mitt is a flip-flopper at least that many times.

Compare Mitt's media treatment to Obama's glorified status for doing essentially nothing. I'm sick of it--the media didn't even jump on Obama's case for saying that about 10,000 people in Kansas had died from tornadoes..........he even used that inaccuracy to attack Bush for not doing anything. If Mitt would have said that, it would have been the topic everywhere--the media is just so darn biased.........thank heavens for the internet where we can sort out the distorted truths.

Small digression:

I'm starting to realize why there are media niches for political thought. The Liberals can spew out whatever they want on T.V. and the viewers can't say anything back to them. The newspapers are a little more fair. The radio is controlled by conservatives--they actually have substance to argue when people call in. Liberals can't survive the radio successfully--few people think immigration amnesty, bigger government, increased welfare spending, and suppression of individual rights are logical (that is why they resort to Bush name-calling........when they're bored with that--they'll call for our troops to be sent home).

First comes the money, now comes killer-debate-performances, and next comes the rise in polls!

I want to prevent this form becoming a Mitt Romney site, so the majority of my Romney praise is now at my new blog: Florida For Romney, so take a gander if you're interested.

I sacrificed sleep before my pharmacology final to watch the debate last night and I wasn't disappointed (the more I listen to McCain and Rudy though, the more I'm convinced they can't beat Clinton or Obama). Mitt couldn't have been more prepared. I especially like how he corrected Chris Matthew's ignorance on stem cell research...............ha! LOL! Mitt is wicked smart. Here are some quotes from people who agreed with me:

The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan: "If we view the proceedings in vulgar and reductive Who Won, Who Lost terms, and let's, Mitt Romney won..." (Peggy Noonan, "An Incomplete Field," The Wall Street Journal," 5/4/07) -

Noonan: "The statuesque Mr. Romney had a certain good-natured command, a presidential voice, and a surprising wiliness. He seemed happy to be there, and in the mysterious way that some people seem to dominate, he dominated." (Peggy Noonan, "An Incomplete Field," The Wall Street Journal," 5/4/07) -

Noonan: "He did some light-handed and audience-pleasing Clinton bashing, and was confident on stem-cell research." (Peggy Noonan, "An Incomplete Field," The Wall Street Journal," 5/4/07)

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza: "Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) stood out with clear and crisp answers - showing flashes of humor and an ease with the important issues. He sounded authoritative when he talked about Iraq (not an easy task for a one-term governor of Massachusetts) and effectively cast himself - a Mormon - as part of the broad faith community in America." (Chris Cillizza, "Debate Wrap Up," The Washington Post's The Fix, http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/, Posted 5/3/07)

Newsweek's Howard Fineman: "I think Mitt Romney came off looking presidential..." (MSNBC's "Post Debate Analysis," 5/3/07)

National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "Romney showed himself to be a smart, articulate, optimistic, serious leader. If it was a first impression for anyone watching, as I imagine it might have been for anyone flipping away from The Office for a few minutes, it was a good start." (National Review Website, www.nationalreview.com, Accessed 5/4/07)

Mullings' Rich Galen: "Overall I thought Romney did the best. He had command of his positions and articulated them well." (Mullings Website, www.mullings.com/, Accessed 5/4/07)

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: "Governor Romney was very good in talking about health care, where he knows a great deal." (Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes," 5/3/07)

New York Daily News' Michael Goodwin: "Romney was very good at turning every answer into a statement of lofty, conservative principle. He spoke of family and marriage and faith and turned a question about 'what don't you like about America?' into a poetic ode to our nation. He came across as sharp and jaunty." (Michael Goodwin, "Giuliani Is Not-So-Artful Dodger," New York Daily News, 5/4/07)

The Politico 's Roger Simon: "It would be terribly irresponsible to pick a winner of Thursday night's Republican debate. So I will. I think Mitt Romney won." (Roger Simon, "Call Me Irresponsible: I Say Romney Won," The Politico, 5/3/07) -

Simon: "...Mitt Romney achieved almost everything he wanted to achieve. He looked and sounded presidential. He hit his talking points. And voters who knew nothing about him before the debate except that he was a Mormon, came away knowing a lot more." (Roger Simon, "Call Me Irresponsible: I Say Romney Won," The Politico, 5/3/07) -

Simon: "Romney was a man with a plan. He knew what points he wanted to make and he made them." (Roger Simon, "Call Me Irresponsible: I Say Romney Won," The Politico, 5/3/07) MSNBC's Contessa Brewer: "I thought Mitt Romney came off as looking very presidential." (MSNBC's "Tucker Carlson Live," 5/4/07)

The Politico's Michael Cornfield And Alan Kelly: "Best playmaker: Mitt Romney. A fluid pace in a frenetic setting. Executive-in-charge. Avoided 'his' religion but talked about faith." (Michael Cornfield and Alan Kelly, "GOP Playmaker's Wrap-up – Our Best And Worst Awards," The Politico, 5/3/07)

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "I'll tell you what, it looked like Mitt Romney really had a strong introduction to the Republican Party tonight." (MSNBC's "Post Debate Analysis," 5/3/07) -

Scarborough: "I'll tell you what, I got a lot of e-mails throughout this debate from Republicans, conservative Republicans across the country, they were telling me they thought Mitt Romney was the clear winner and I got to tell you Keith, that's the view from a lot of people inside of here right now." (MSNBC's "Post Debate Analysis," 5/3/07) -

Scarborough: "And this really looked like his format. ... Some people like Ronald Reagan pop at these type of debate settings. It looked like Mitt Romney pops in these type of settings." (MSNBC's "Post-Debate Analysis," 5/3/07)

Scarborough: "You're going to find out over the next couple of days that Mitt Romney is the guy that exceeded expectations, and John McCain was a guy that didn't quite meet expectations. A lot of the Republican base may start moving to Mitt Romney. Rudy Giuliani just was a little more flat that people expected, didn't show the type of leadership that people expected him tonight. Of course this is just a debate but certain people pop in the debate, certain people don't. Tonight it was Mitt Romney who seemed to break out of the pack." (MSNBC's "Post-Debate Analysis," 3/3/07)

National Review's Jim Geraghty: "Romney had some strong answers, good humor. I'd be surprised if he didn't help himself tonight. Maybe the audience will see what attracted his fans. Clearly, this was a format he seemed at home in." (Jim Geraghty, "Jim's Summary and Wrap-Up," The Hillary Spot On National Review Online, www.nationalreview.com , Posted 5/3/07)

National Journal's Marc Ambinder: "Mitt Romney is great with first impressions... He certainly seemed presidential. He flubbed no question. His knowledge was evident." (Marc Ambinder, "The Debate: Post-Spin Analysis," National Journal's On Call, http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/05/the_debate_post.html , Posted 5/4/07)

The Politico's Jonathan Martin: "Mitt Romney's aides and advisers were buoyant after the forum. And for some good reason. The former Massachusetts governor, ever handsome and articulate, was poised and smooth for most of the evening. For the thousands (millions?) watching at home who were getting their first taste of Mitt, they had to come away impressed." (Jonathan Martin, "My Take," The Politico, 5/3/07) -

Martin: "When even his opponents acknowledge that he performed well, you know Romney had a pretty good night." (Jonathan Martin, "My Take," The Politico, 5/3/07)

New York Sun's Ryan Sager: "If anyone stood out from the other candidates, in terms of looking polished and poised, it was clearly Mr. Romney. He got off some of the best lines of the night... But any casual observer of the debate (were there any non-junkies watching?) would probably have to view him as head-and-shoulders above the others." (Ryan Sager, "Who Won? Who Lost?" New York Sun Politics Blog, www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/who-won-who-lost.html , 5/3/07)

Dan Riehl: "Romney may be the guy who pulled it out tonight." (Dan Riehl, "McCain Can't Catch A Break," Riehl World View, www.riehlworldview.com/ , Posted 5/3/07)

John Hinderaker: "If you didn't already know how good Romney is, you would be really impressed by his performance tonight." (John Hinderaker, "Liveblogging The GOP Debate," Power Line Forum, www.plnewsforum.com , Posted 5/3/07)

Columnist Kathleen Parker: "And the winner is: Mitt the Good, the Perfect, the Gosh-Darned Smartest of Them All. He was substantive, concise, and humorous, if somewhat over-educated for those who haven't yet read the Cliff Notes on altered nuclear stem cells. His answer on stem-cell research showed that he has delved deeply into the issue..." (National Review Website, www.nationalreview.com , Accessed 5/4/07)

Captain's Quarters' Ed Morrissey: "Who won? – Mitt Romney won this debate. He looked relaxed, answered clearly, showed real warmth and a sense of humor, and actually answered the questions asked of him – even the stupid ones, to which I'll return shortly." (Ed Morrissey, "Debate Analysis: Romney Wins," Captain's Quarters Blog, www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009874.php, Posted 5/3/07)

Townhall's Dean Barnett: "Mitt Romney – Romney was clearly the class of the field. I know, I'm biased, blah, blah, blah. But if you saw the debate, believe your own eyes. Romney has a command of the facts and an effective delivery that must be the envy of the field. As America gets to know him in forums like this (not that I'm hoping there will be other forums precisely like this hideous one – perish that thought), the country will come to understand why Romney has generated such excitement among insiders and people who know him." (Dean Barnett, "A Quickie Debate Recap," Hugh Hewitt, hughhewitt.townhall.com , Posted 5/3/07)

CBN's David Brody: "The debate is over and I thought Mitt Romney really came across well. He was comfortable, funny and somewhat free wheeling." (CBN Website, www.cbn.com/CBNnews/151174.aspx, Accessed 5/4/07)

National Review's Mark Hemmingway: "It's obvious now that in the first major Republican presidential debate Mitt Romney put in a very strong performance." (Mark Hemingway, "Mitt Romney Can Do Whatever The Heck He Wants," National Review, 5/4/07)

As much fun it is to rail on politics, I realized that it is going to be a long haul until the election next year. Both Romney and Clinton have raised absurd amounts of money which doesn't portend well.

Folks, it's gonna get ugly. Real ugly.

Can we call him Moneybags Mitt now?

You know what they say about polls... nonetheless, I thought this was interesting.

Here's a recent poll that shows Mitt might not be doing as hot as you might like to think. In fact, it shows that Republicans would favor an actor who hasn't even announced his intention to run over good old Mitty.

Ouch!

Guess who's movin' up in the polls?

Yep! 22%.........just 7% behind frontrunner Rudy (in New Hampshire).

1st place in having the strongest character.
1st place in his stance on major issues.

Not bad........Not bad at all.

Just imagine what some name recognition would do--only 50% of Republicans know who Romney is!

Man I'm glad all the bogus stories on him have almost been exhausted......especially when his profile was pretty low. The liberal media will be hitting themselves for their bad timing in the months to come.

Although, look for an upcoming story from the Washington Post: "Romney's Mormon Force in Iowa." Well, that's what the reporter might call it. This reporter has been harassing BYU graduates in Iowa trying to dig up a story of Romney mingling church and politics.

It's funny, I bet black ministers are preaching from their pulpits to vote for Hillary or Obama, and evangelicals are preaching support for Brownback or Huckabee........but Mitt is the one getting crapped on for not separating church from politics.

Off the subject:
I really want republicans to stretch out their hands to african-americans more........it's ridiculous that 90% of them vote democrat. Personally, I think it's from ignorance and heavy political sway from idiots like Jackson and Sharpton.

Dems take minority votes for granted........I can't wait until it's exposed.

I can't wait for the day the blacks realize that many of them are in this perpetual state of living in the slums because the dems keep them there. Don't worry--someday I'll write an essay to express my views on this subject in depth. But right now I should get back to studyin'.

Thought I would beat you to the punch.

I might have to start another site if this keeps up.

I could call it 'Mormons against Mitt'.

Debby Hartman sent this to Tara the other day and I thought you might enjoy it.

Top ten reasons to vote for a Mormon President

10) The National Cathedral could be renamed the National Tabernacle

9) NASA could commission a satellite to "hie to Kolob"

8) The Secret Service could be renamed the Sacred Service

7) All official government prayers could include the phrase "that we
all can get home safely"

6) Napoleon Dynamite could get someone other than Pedro elected

5) The President could not only explain things in Layman's terms, but
also Lemuel's terms

4) The President could issue pardons in exchange for 100% home
teaching

3) Not only could he pronounce "Nuclear" but also "Mahonri
Moriancumer" and "Maher Shalal Hash Baz".

2) At his inauguration he would swear on the Bible "as far as it is
translated correctly"

1) Finally a first family large enough to fill up the White House

Bottom line . . . Romney has always been opposed to gay marriage and civil unions and he has always been against discrimination (and therefore "unequal or lesser rights") of gays and lesbians. Those are the facts, no matter how anyone else tries to paint them. These pieces take Romney's statements wildly out of context and try to get the reader to believe that there is no room for someone to be against sexual-orientation discrimination and in favor of preserving the traditional family unit.

BOSTON GLOBE--Gov. Mitt Romney's beliefs on gay issues are under scrutiny after the re-emergence of a letter he wrote during his 1994 run for U.S. Senate in which he promised a gay Republicans group he would be a stronger advocate for gays than Sen. Edward Kennedy.

One paragraph and one lie already . . . Romney never promised to be "a stronger advocate for gays" than Teddy . . . he promised to be a more effective leader and a more respectable voice against gay-discrimination. Romney IS an effective leader and he made some good points about Romney, as a Republican, could be a more effective voice among possible Senate colleagues than Teddy on these issues.

"I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party and I would be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts."

SEE, IT'S ALL ABOUT ROMNEY BEING ANTI-DISCRIMINATION . . . NOT about him wanting to grant special rights and priviledges to gays.

Romney even ended his interview:

I believe that while I would further the efforts Ted Kennedy has led, I would also lead the country in new and far more positive ways in taxing and spending, welfare reform, criminal justice and education. That's why I believe many gay and lesbian individuals will support my candidacy and do support my candidacy.

Romney wasn't trying to be more "pro-gay" than Kennedy, and he realized that it was these other issues would draw some gay voters to him.

What Romney actually said:

On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples:

“I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it’s a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position.”

On whether he’d want more studies done on the marriage issue:

“That will occur at the state level. I’ll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action.”


--Credits: A little of James, the Boston Globe, and mostly the Free Republic