Yawn: Mitt opposed Human Life Amendment in March
posted at 5:14 pm on November 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Apparently this is big news. Bigger than when we first found out about it three months ago? Follow that link for the whole saga. He took the federalist line early this year, then told Stephanopoulos in August that he supports the party’s position on the Human Life Amendment, then his campaign manager tried to square the circle by suggesting that he wants the states to decide the issue for themselves until enough consensus has developed nationally to pass the HLA. Not the most elegant position, for reasons I explained in my earlier post. But unless I’m missing something, it’s old news.
Exit question: Does this really hurt Mitt when the NRLC’s candidate of choice takes the same federalist position vis-a-vis the HLA? Click the image to watch.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Small potatoes, unimportant, compared to his flip-flops on immigration, gun-control, etc. etc. It just fits a pattern.
right2bright on November 17, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Unmportant?! How in the name of Holy God is this unimportant?! If you’re not alive to make/spend wealth, the question of taxation is moot! If you’re not alive to grip anything in your working fingers, you sure as hell can’t hold a gun!
I’m sorry, but anyone who thinks the HLA is a matter of federalism, for or against, is just a common moron who doesn’t belong in the hallowed oval office.
I have said it before in these comments, and I will say it again: The only reason not to pass a human-life amendment is because the voters don’t want it. Put it to a vote in the state legislatures, let the people decide, and let it go.
gryphon202 on November 17, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Mitt will say anything a particular audience wants to hear (ala Hillary) if he thinks it will help. Mitt’s flip-flopping put’s him in the same category as Lurch. If Mitt’s the nominee, the GOP will be nuetralized in it’s effort to portray Hillary as a flip-flopper.
edgehead on November 17, 2007 at 5:44 PM
Doesn’t hurt him overall. The position itself doesn’t hurt him at all. Only thing that might do minor damage was changing his position a few times.
Jay on November 17, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Yeah, which is why he’s making apologies for his older positions and sticking to his new ones adamantly.
Unlike Kerry and Hillary, who contradict themselves within two minutes.
Mitt has flipped.
There hasn’t been a flop back, as much as the anti-Mitt crowd wishes it were so.
BKennedy on November 17, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Old news, and yes, anyone who supports Fred and/or the NRLC better not whine about this.
But of course his opponents will use this against him. That’s politics.
Splashman on November 17, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Well now I feel like I need to make something perfectly clear:
If Mitt is the nominee, I’ll vote for Mitt. If Fred is the nominee, I’ll vote for Fred. If Rudy (blech) is the nominee, I’ll vote for him. I would sooner vote for anyone with an “R” behind their names.
That having been said, the qualifications of anyone that tosses about the word “federalism” with such a grotesque misunderstanding of the word…well, let’s just say they’re suspect in my eyes.
I’m sure I’m starting to sound like a broken record, but come on! The consitution is written in plain English, and the amendment process is one part of our constitution that is left purposely unambiguous. It may be the only part of our consitution that is purposely unambiguous, and it shouldn’t take a flipping consitutional scholar to figure it out.
gryphon202 on November 17, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Hypocrisy and complete nonsense.
It’s bad enough that we have to watch liberals make excuses and try to explain away all of their moronic moves, but it’s frustrating beyond belief to watch conservatives then do the same thing..
When Kerry blasts the war, we show videos of him voting for the war and we label him a flip flopper. When Romney pretends to believe something because he knows it’s what voters want to hear … you claim he’s sincerely changed his mind? Gag.
Romney is no more sincere than Her Thighness. He says what he thinks you want to hear. His positions in the past were exactly what voters in his district wanted to hear. Now he’s saying what you want to hear. Wake up!
Gregor on November 17, 2007 at 7:58 PM
I’m not trying to pick on you gryphon, I like the idea of national votes on issues.
I’m sure I’ll get some folks riled up with this but then they might as well get riled for all the right reasons.
There is a side of this issue that is being ignored.
And that is social Cons are going overboard.
I suppose its only natural, the abortion rights advocates have clawed away at this issue for some years now and they have Roe V Wade to point at; social Cons also vehemently point out the importance of the church in our Founders lives and decisions and rightfully so.
Hence:
“John Adams
1735-1826
Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.”
Our Founders understood the critical importance of morals and they gave the responsibility of instituting Christian morals into the populace, to the Christian church.
The Founders also realized the importance of separating the church from the government, that decisions be made by moral and independent citizens not by leaders or tenets of the church.
Freedom depends on a Republic run by a free and moral citizenry.
Hence:
“The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.
- John Adams, 2nd US President”
It is naive to think our Founders were unaware of abortion, they had no recourse as do we but to depend on the innate goodness of people to use good judgment in preserving the health of their children, within the womb as well as without.
If we’re unhappy with the judgment of Americans that is the true target of change.
We have wrongs to right, Roe V Wade surely among them; however the opposite is also wrong, rushing to amend an already over burdened Constitution falls into that category.
The answer lies in refreshing the morals that relieves the pressure on our highest law and making certain all of our laws are within the Constitutional paradigm and also refusing the temptation to yet again go beyond the means to regulate and thus destroy freedom by infusing government with religion or anti religion or personal dictate, all the same.
The Constitution does not and cannot have the authority to regulate our personal lives and there is nothing more personal than reproduction.
For myself, somewhere between blastocyst and sentience personal decision becomes barbarity and the founders intentional importance of moral understanding and behavior becomes the guide for decision.
Speakup on November 17, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Nothing hurts you when you are already fatally wounded.
Maxx on November 17, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Is this a flip-flop? His website has this same position listed from a comment he made in 2005.
csdeven on November 17, 2007 at 9:30 PM
AND the NRLC’s candidate of choice lobbied for dictators and gave legal advice to terrorists.
Mitt’s still fine because the rest of the candidates have more baggage. He’ll be the lesser of the evils IF he can start polling better than Rudy against the Glacier.
csdeven on November 17, 2007 at 9:33 PM
And this is what really chaps my ass, Speak. The courts have weighed in. Every flipping candidate for public office is asked to weigh in. The president, in one form or another, gets repeated chances to weigh in. What about the people?
The people should decide. And I don’t mean the elected representatives of the people. I think most of our present company here are probably highly-suspicious of the body politique now. Let’s out with it, and if we’re really and truly going to hell-in-handbasket, I want it to be, indeed, because of our collective national conscience, and not some lousy bums in DC who are probably out-of-touch.
gryphon202 on November 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM
And I’m sure it’s purely coincidental that he started plans to run for President in mid-2005.
Romney has had 3 positions on this in the past 3 years- 2 of them just in the past 8 months.
He makes 2004 Kerry look like the rock of Gibraltar.
Hollowpoint on November 17, 2007 at 10:06 PM
I didn’t mean the cause is unimportant…what Mitt did was unimportant in light of his history, it fits his pattern.
right2bright on November 17, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Does anyone seriously think that a Human Life Amendment could be ratified?
On the other hand it realistic to imagine Roe v. Wade overturned and power returned to the states. That’s where our attention should be focused at this time.
I think we devote far too much energy to issues that cannot realistically be resolved. It’s vitally important to have principles and goals, but one also needs to be pragmatic and prioritize – or ultimately no meaningful agenda can move forward.
The President has limited power to influence issues like abortion. In addition to appointing conservative jurists, Romney would do a great job of using the bully pulpit to change hearts and minds, as evidenced for example by his articulate position on the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.
We should be focusing on issues where the President really does have power like judicial appointments, national security issues, taxes, immigration policy, pursuing the war on terror, fighting islamofascism, and so forth.
There is no reason to think that Romney wouldn’t do a superb job with those vital issues. The guy has led his life as a conservative. The idea that he is secretly a flaming liberal and would turn his back on conservatives once elected is ludicrous.
Buy Danish on November 17, 2007 at 10:17 PM
That explains perfectly why hit veto pen was turbocharged when he was in office. He was so very interested in making sure the liberal population of Massachusetts was pandered to.
I know you wish Romney was a do-anything say-anything flip-flopper, you really do. But that just doesn’t jive with reality.
Just a question: Do you support Fred Thompson? You know, the money funneling corrupt johnny-come-lately federalist? The one who was always pro-life except for that one instance where he lobbied for an abortion group, and of course that minor gaffe over imprisoning women straight from NARAL’s rhetoric book. How bought free speech? Surely the federalist supports that… aside from that one time he spearheaded McCain Feingold precisely to stifle free speech.
It’s just a small flaw I’ve noticed in Thompson supporters: immense levels of psychological projection.
BKennedy on November 17, 2007 at 10:44 PM
I, like gryphon202 before me will vote for Mitt if he is the nominee. With the current state of the Democrat party, I would vote for any (R) over any (D)(well, maybe not Ron truther Paul)
My question is: Was Mitt pandering then or is he pandering now? We will leave ourselve very vulnerable if we nominate a candidate as thin on substance as Mitt Romney. He’s the Republican Bill Clinton (minus monica). I guarantee he will veer left once he gets the nomination. Remember folks, the key to winning next November is not to appeal to the NY-Boston-DC corridor. The trick is to appeal to flyover country AND those Democrats who are disgusted with the shameful behavior of the Dems in Washington (trust me, there are many). Romney will be exposed as a charlatan by then.
edgehead on November 17, 2007 at 11:10 PM
George W Bush presented himself as a conservative in 2000 and he is on many issues but not on some very important ones. Conservatives are a little wary of a someone who has publicly supported abortion rights and then changed his mind when he decided to run for President. I don’t think it is off base to mention this unease.
As for Fred’s positions, they are what have always been. I am sick and tired to trying to explain the role of an advocate to csdeven so I will just say that when Fred has run for public office he has had the same positions he has now. The only time he has changed his mind is when he supported McCain/Feingold.
My biggest problem with Mitt is his change of heart on so many issues and that these changes correspond with his decision to run for the presidency.
Bill C on November 17, 2007 at 11:48 PM
Bingo.
sanantonian on November 18, 2007 at 12:06 AM
As a strong pro-lifer, I see the Federalist position as the best one. It was — after all — the position virtually everyone took for generations until the Supremes (in their fit of Roe v. Wade indignation) invalidated the current, validly-enacted abortion laws then in effect in ALL 50 STATES!
I do not see the point in decorating the Constitution like a Christmas tree with additional amendments.
The only catch today, is that — although there are a number of state legislatures (e.g., Oklahoma, South Dakota, to name two) that could easily pass statewide abortion laws virtually eliminating legal abortions within their borders — there are too many rogue (pro-abortion) activist judges afoot to whom the ACLU/Planne-Parenthood types can run to have said laws overturned as “unConstitutional.”
sanantonian on November 18, 2007 at 12:12 AM
It’s an academic point. You wouldn’t be able to get 2/3 of either house to pass the amendment. With retirements, the Dems are likely to have 55+ in the senate. Appointing judges to overturn Roe is about the best the president could do.
dedalus on November 18, 2007 at 12:17 AM
No, you’re sick and tired of people not buying into your BS about Fred being an “advocate”. Bwahahahahaha!!!! That’s lawyer speak for representing dictators and terrorists! Fred is both an unprincipled lawyer and a scumbag lobbyist. The American people will reject him completely.
Mitt on the other hand is principled, honest, and conservative. He follows conservative values in his personal life and honors his commitments to the electorate.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 12:29 AM
Cs(gee I forgot what I said in other posts)Deven
He believes life starts at conception. A principled person would insist that the current acceptance of murdering unborn children be immediately considered out of the question. Just like murder of any other person is. Fred has painted himself into a corner. Well, he had already done it, but now he has done it on national TV. A lot of us haven’t been fooled by this clown for one single second, so our perception of him has been confirmed. That’s nice to know.
csdeven on November 4, 2007 at 8:32 PM
So Does this mean you are dropping your support of Mitt
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 12:30 AM
What a ta ta ta do be yaa
CSDeven
He believes life starts at conception. A principled person would insist that the current acceptance of murdering unborn children be immediately considered out of the question.
or
Mitt on the other hand is principled, honest, and conservative. He follows conservative values in his personal life and honors his commitments to the electorate.
They call him flipper flipper faster than lightning
Lets all give a Kerry to CSDeven
Otherwise I might have to turn baywatch on again :)
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 12:33 AM
And stay tuned for 800 more words meandering more than a river in Denial
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 12:34 AM
This embarassing exposure of CSDeven was brought to you by
findhimahobby.com
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 12:36 AM
I guess we all can’t be lion tamers, csdeven.
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Wrong context. Personal life. Ya know, Fred says all his lobbying belongs in his “personal” life.
Fred’s “personal” life consists of giving advice to terrorists and lobbying for scumbags. Chasing skirts all over Washington and funneling campaign cash to his family. He is committed to his own fun and didn’t see his first wife as worthy to stick it out through thick and thin.
Mitt’s personal life is raising his family, be honest in his businesses, and not running around Washington screwing anything he can get his hands on. He also doesn’t associate with dictators and terrorists and doesn’t funnel campaign cash to his family. He is committed to his wife enough to work through the tough times and never gave up on their marriage.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 1:29 AM
And you people who have a hard on for me can’t seem to be able to comprehend what you read.
Context. Context. Context.
Is this all you suffers from csdeven derangement syndrome have to do is stalk me from thread to thread trying to play “gotcha”? Hint for you: If you want to play “gotcha”, you need to make sure you’re comprehending what is written. Since you are so pathetically awful at it, my suggestion is that you go get a life. Preferable living your own and not trying to live mine.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 1:37 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 1:46 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 1:52 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 1:56 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 2:00 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 2:03 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 2:12 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 2:15 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 2:18 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 2:21 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 2:23 AM
jaime on November 18, 2007 at 2:24 AM
CS(trying to hide behind context)Deven
You are the only person who is saying you misquoted yourself
A blogverse first
Imagine that
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 4:32 AM
CS(cryingvictim)Deven
Two words
Hoist
Petard
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 4:36 AM
CsDeven
BTW
Murder, assault and rape have always been left up to the states, in fact most crimes are.
Go figure
It was in the constitution somewhere
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 4:39 AM
You’re still not making any valid point. Inference by posting comments I have made from other threads does nothing. You need to explain your point with your own words. (If you can)
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 5:44 AM
EricPWJohnson triple posted and still didn’t say anything coherent.
Speaking of hoisting by your own petard, I distinctly remember EricPWJohnson saying Mitt’s dad bought him all his jobs awhile back.
It was a rather grand tirade on how Mitt was evil and unaccomplished because his parents were rich and bought him everything he has ever claimed to have done himself.
BKennedy on November 18, 2007 at 7:28 AM
BKennedy
He’s a billionaires son spin it any way you want – rich kid, pure and simple.
But the point you are desperately trying to avoid was again CSDeven talking out of both sides and got caught redhanded in less than 2 weeks.
Typical
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 7:38 AM
Shall I point both of you to:
Findahobby.com
Or
Howtoarguewithoutfacts.com
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 7:39 AM
Bkennedy
when someone says they are a hotshot top of the heap manager and we should vote for them cause they achieved so much so fast
And I point out they are a billionaires son, the descent of other enormously wealthy families and leaped immiediately to the top on their first day -
Gee, color me vicious
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 7:43 AM
I see the truth is still painfull
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 7:43 AM
Apparently they didn’t help you, so why should I bother?
BKennedy on November 18, 2007 at 7:44 AM
So, um, WHERE is Hugh Hewitt to scold Mitt for this lapse in pro-life like he did when he beat up the NRTL guy on his show for picking Fred Thompson over Huckabee??
Hugh smacked that guy around heavy because they chose Thompson even though Thompson stood on a Federalist’s position and wouldn’t support the Right to life Amendment. Hugh said that he was himself a big “prolifer” and couldn’t understand the NRTL guys picking Thompson.
But, now Hugh’s own GUY can be shown not supporting the Amendment.
So where is Hugh’s faux outrage and high dudgeon??
The man is an utter hypocrite.
Warner Todd Huston on November 18, 2007 at 8:14 AM
As one who believes in a child’s right to life, I do not believe an amendment to the Constitution is a reasonable solution. Why give power to the federal government that it does not have? The LORD has already given us life, liberty, and property (and He alone has the right to take this away).
A baby in its first nine months of life is under the protection of the LORD, unless a money sucking skull crusher intervenes (free will exists on this earth if you have not noticed).
To assign the LORD’s power to a federal government overrun by unelected bureaucrats is an error. Romney and Fred! are right to reject this silly proposal known as the Human Life Amendment. It’s like introducing a Human Toilet Amendment, where everyone has the right to bodily functions.
Everyone in the nation can be pro-life. If the decision arrives in your life, be pro-life. Also, states can outlaw skull crushers or permit skull crushers to operate their businesses. As Fred! stated on MTP, this is a matter for the individual states.
It is amazing to see people so interested in a small, limited federal government assigning the power of the Almighty to the feds.
saved on November 18, 2007 at 9:14 AM
Saved
Amen!!!!!!
Warner T Houston
Makes you wonder…
Hewitt jumped the shark months ago
good guy, just actually believes everything he says
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 9:20 AM
Yeah. I’m trying to figure out where his is going with this. There are a couple of possibilities, but I’m not going to mention them because I suspect he is going after the one dimensional point based on his hopes for what I have said instead of what I actually said.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 9:37 AM
Well, at least that is a finer point. You want to show me where I spoke out of the other side of my mouth?
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Considering this is something that just got some legs, why not wait a day or so for Hugh to address it?
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 9:40 AM
It isn’t about assigning Gods power to the feds. It’s about SECURING those rights when God is not. God is not preventing abortions, so it’s up to us to do it for him through the democratic process.
The groups who support the HLA are frustrated with the failure of the SCOTUS to overturn RvW, so they have come up with this. Getting 3/4 of the states is easier than getting all 50 to ban it individually. Of course the preferred why is to strike down RvW and send it to the states to decide. But even then, not all win ban it and that is too many.
I my opinion, the easiest way to banning abortion is through science. IF science can prove that life begins at conception, then the baby is eligible for all the protections under the US constitution and no state could write a law contradicting it.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 9:52 AM
You have 651 meandering words to go
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 10:01 AM
CS
Have fun have a great day, you’re a good guy – you just need to realize that well balance would get you further
Romney is buying an election or at least attempting too
based on our system of fair play its just wrong
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 10:10 AM
Did EricPWJohnson mention that he has an interest in FACTS?
Well then this story about Romney should pique his interest as well as correct some of the blatant falsehoods he has been peddling – such as his insistence that it was only due to Romney’s father’s intervention that he secured his first job. It’s never too late to make amends!
Buy Danish on November 18, 2007 at 10:50 AM
It’s also a good time to reflect on how Romney’s religion affects his character and conduct toward others. Here is a good anecdote in that regard:
It’s too bad that the same cannot be said of EricPWJohnson and a few others who share a similar mindset.
Buy Danish on November 18, 2007 at 11:16 AM
But you want to give the Almighty’s power to the states? Like for Elliot Spitzer to exercise? I think Federalism is a good thing, but it’s not a panacea either.
JiangxiDad on November 18, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Buy Danish
Nice try
all I said was he was a billionaires son the name sake and god son of one of the wealthiest families on the planet and his mothers extended family is EXTREMELY wealthy
And his path from internship in the riviera to the harsh confines of Harvard must have taken its toll that he barely landed a seven figure rookie VP job at a top wall Street firm
Yes, all distortions I admit
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 11:37 AM
You don’t really think anyone is the group is fooled by your BS do you?
All you have to do is quote the post. It’s that simple. I don’t get what it is with you people. A different HA member started this same stuff the other day and refused to quote the post. I am willing to discuss it, but when you want to make accusations and then not want to discuss them, well, you come off like someone with zero credibility.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 11:37 AM
look if he were running on his record and his positions and was financed by the public
My suspicions and my alleged what was that stupid word – oh yeah “gibotry” would be less
but a billionaire’s son buying himself a presidency financed by a religious movement and wealthy interested parties seems a bit – whats the word – tacky
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 11:40 AM
I see you’re banking on people’s inablility to actually read your stepping in it
Over and over and over and over
still claiming you misquoted yourself?
really this is too funny
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Look, I’m pretty forgiving when people want to put finer points on their comments, so I’m going to give you the opportunity to explain this next comment that you made in the…..
“Uh oh: Reports of anti-Romney, anti-Mormon push polling in Iowa; Update: 527 org responsible?”
thread.
But I have to tell you, it seems as if you are at odds with what you are asserting in this thread. If you can satisfactorily explain the two, then I can see my way to giving you some credibility.
I patiently await your response.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Why can’t/wont you quote the post?
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 11:53 AM
“All you said” is a complete fabrication.
Let’s go back and review one of your comments. We can play a game of “Find the Lies!”. I find a total of 4 in 4 sentences. That’s batting 1000. Good for you, EricPW!
Oh, and is it a 7 figure or 8 figure job which was assert was handed to him on a silver platter by the Mormons? Just trying to get your story straight.
Thanks in advance!
Buy Danish on November 18, 2007 at 12:03 PM
I don’t think he can square the two. But, I’m still willing to hear him out.
If he can’t, it’s lucky for him, but unlucky for us, most people wont see this hypocrisy and know to avoid spending too much time trying to have a rational discussion with him. This really is the tipping point with me. If he cannot square this, or admit his duplicity, I’ll never engage him again.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Oh look, another post on HotAir bashing Mitt (in that it gives red meat to the anti-Mitt or anti-Mormon crowd on here). And here I thought an apple or a glass of wine was all I was suppposed to partake in once a day, every day. I see the cannibals are also out in full force to eat Mitt and Hugh Hewitt, two of the better minds in conservative America. In psycholgy my area of expertise) there is a thing called motivated reasoning. This is where someone forms an opinion (usually w/o much active cognition) and then exercises much cognitive effort to ignore information that is contradictory to their previously developed opinion and readily accepts whatever backs up their previoulsy developed opinions. I have no proof, but would be VERY surprised if this wasn’t being used right now in comments on this post because people have decided to support Giuliani (even thought he isn’t really conservative) or Thompson (no money, couldn’t compete against Hillary, backed McCain-Feingold, questionable record on abortion, not as fast on his feet as Romney or Giuliani, etc. etc.). People need to give some serious thought to just why they have already decided to back Rudy or Fred.
davenp35 on November 18, 2007 at 12:12 PM
Here’s a little geography and history lesson for EricPWJohnson who claims that Mitt’s French mission took him to the “Riviera”, which is along the Cote d’Azur (the implication being of course that he landed in the lap of luxury and lounged at the beach with starlets all day).
Let’s start with what daily life was like on this cushy mission:
Now let’s examine the geography of France. Keep in mind that Mitt served in Paris, which is part of the Ile de France., and Bordeaux, which is in the Aquitaine Region.
Map of France.
Map of Aquitaine Region.
Map of Paris.
Map of the French Riviera.
In fairness to EricPW, I won’t put this particular error in the category of “lying”, but will file it away in a folder labeled “Willful Ignorance”.
Buy Danish on November 18, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I support Romney and Giuliani. Either one of them would be find by me, as they both have a tremendous amount to offer, and both have executive experience.
Romney is more of a social con in how he leads his life, but Giuliani employed many conservative policies when he ran NYC. I lived there and suffered under the previous ultra-liberal administrations, and I know first hand what he accomplished in the area of welfare reform, tax reform, going after the unions, crime reduction, fighting the ACLU, quality of life issues, and so forth.
Buy Danish on November 18, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Hell no.
Anyone see the 2004 election results?
omnipotent on November 18, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I refuse to listen to Hugh anymore.
His 3hour Romney commericial is too off-putting for me.
And intellectually dishonest.
omnipotent on November 18, 2007 at 1:06 PM
The NRLC has a focus on overturning Roe in the SCOTUS because that would be the easiest thing to do. They don’t have any illusion of banning abortion in all 50 states. It is an impossible task. However, we are just one justice away from saying goodbye to Roe. For me, that is as good as we can expect from the Federal gov’t and as long as a candidate is for appointing Federalist society members then I can’t complain.
Science can’t prove an essentially existential question. It is philosophical which is why the question has been answered politically and will have to be changed politically.
Bill C on November 18, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Would you care to discuss why Fred’s 20 billable hours trumps his 100% pro-life voting record? Or why giving a member of his firm advice on extradition comprises working for a dictator? You have used people’s ignorance of the role of a lawyer to consistently slander Fred Thompson then you go ballistic when someone questions Mitt’s CV in any way. You are a dishonest partisan. No one should trust what you have to say at this point.
Bill C on November 18, 2007 at 3:04 PM
You’re right, science can’t prove it yet, but if it could, one way or the other, the controversy could be put to bed.
That one justice is why the dems need to be defeated this election. If we could get 8 years of a conservative, we could stack the court with constructionists and put a serious dent in the liberals attempts to destroy the conservative principles that make this country the greatest on the face of the earth.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Oh so now he’s a poor humble billionaires son who may have only made seven figures and slept just miles away from the Riviera instead of Rwanda
Muhawhawhawhawhaw
CsDeven still claiming he misquoted himself?
Muhawhawhawhaw
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 5:02 PM
OK, I gave you a chance to be at the adult table, but you would rather act like a child. You have serious problems gibot.
Let me know when you’re ready to grow up and I’ll consider allowing you the respect of my attention.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 6:00 PM
CsDeven
It was simple
you blasted fred for being a federalist on Abortion
You forgot you praised Romney for being a Federalist on Abortion a little over a week ago
we call that WHoops!
I’m not arguing with you because you are arguing with yourself
feel free to continue
EricPWJohnson on November 18, 2007 at 8:08 PM
That’s the problem with a Romney supporter, I guess. Just like their leader any issue is open to a flip flop!
Warner Todd Huston on November 18, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Still waiting for the quote.
csdeven on November 18, 2007 at 10:18 PM
CSdeven keep reading everyone else saw it
muhawhawhaw
EricPWJohnson on November 19, 2007 at 1:37 AM
Comment pages: