Romney in 2002: Hey, liberals, “you really need me in Washington”

posted at 12:45 pm on November 3, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

This might be a more helpful story to Mitt Romney in October 2012 rather than November 2011.  Undoubtedly, that’s why the Washington Post decided to run with it now:

Mitt Romney was firm and direct with the abortion rights advocates sitting in his office nine years ago, assuring the group that if elected Massachusetts governor, he would protect the state’s abortion laws.

Then, as the meeting drew to a close, the businessman offered an intriguing suggestion — that he would rise to national prominence in the Republican Party as a victor in a liberal state and could use his influence to soften the GOP’s hard-line opposition to abortion.

He would be a “good voice in the party” for their cause, and his moderation on the issue would be “widely written about,” he said, according to detailed notes taken by an officer of the group, NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.

“You need someone like me in Washington,” several participants recalled Romney saying that day in September 2002, an apparent reference to his future ambitions.

Romney made similar assurances to activists for gay rights and the environment, according to people familiar with the discussions, both as a candidate for governor and then in the early days of his term.

WaPo’s reporters Peter Wallsten and Juliet Eilperin say that this gives us some “revealing insights into the ever-evolving ideology of Romney.”  Boy, does it ever.  As Wallsten and Eilperin also note, though, this isn’t entirely new.  They sniffed some of this out from a Los Angeles Times profile of Romney in 2007, just as he was launching his first presidential bid.

The article goes into great detail on his policy positions, especially on the environment, which we have already covered at Hot Air.  The question is less that Romney has an “ever-evolving ideology,” though, than whether Romney has any ideology at all.  One could look at that positively and say that Romney might be the ultimate Republican pragmatist who can get things done, or negatively with Romney being another politician willing to say anything to get elected.  Since the biggest aim for Republicans in the 2012 general is to send Barack Obama into retirement, being able to get elected might not be an awful epithet to toss.

Here’s the problem with that, however.  In either description, there is no reliable indicator to determine exactly what a President Romney would do once in office.  It’s possible, as Michael Gerson argued this week, that Romney can no longer afford to flip again on any of these issues.  It’s also possible that President Mitt Romney might turn into Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who folded his common-sense conservative tent after getting one bloody nose in a referendum fight and aligned himself with liberal Democrats in California.  Pragmatically speaking, that allowed Schwarzenegger to win re-election.  Did that benefit Republicans in California?  Not at all, and some California Republicans believe that Schwarzenegger’s bad performance will remain a millstone around their necks for some time to come.

Again, if Romney wins the nomination, I will vote for him in November and have no trouble encouraging others to do so.  Before that time arrives, though, conservatives should take a hard look at the current field to find the most reliable conservative that has a chance at winning both the nomination and the general election.  If people conclude that’s Romney, fine, but we’re not done with the vetting process yet, either.

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

Romney will get the nomination.

Romney will run the gauntlet.

Axelrod & the media will pick Romney over.

Conservatives will laugh.

tetriskid on November 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Kind of old news that Romney ran more to the left to get elected in the most liberal state in the union. In other words, this is already baked into his stock price.

hanzblinx on November 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

The media is trying WAY TOO HARD to get Mittens the nomination…

Khun Joe on November 3, 2011 at 12:49 PM

Swamp_yankee explained this already.

All day long, Romney has been consistently pro-life, supporting pro-life candidates for over 5 years.

swamp_yankee on November 3, 2011 at 11:28 AM

Mitt has been a real good Conservative for over 5 years now!

Leave Mitt alone!!!! He’s been good for 5 years now!

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 12:52 PM

Kind of old news that Romney ran more to the left to get elected in the most liberal state in the union. In other words, this is already baked into his stock price.

hanzblinx on November 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

So you admit Romney has no core convictions. He just says what he has to in order to get elected?

Your standards aren’t to high, are they?

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Just run the comments from above down here and get this gem:

“You know, Robert Bork is Mitt Romney’s judicial advisor.” -Mittbot

Is that not a knee slapper?

Marcus on November 3, 2011 at 12:54 PM

The stupidity of conservatives 9some):
So now NARAL is to be trusted? Tell me, do they want Romney elected? If so, why would they come forward with this “claim”, knowing it could cost him the nom? If they wanted him elected, they’d bury this story fast. So they must be doing the GOP a favor… award for the most gullible site goes to Hotair!

drballard on November 3, 2011 at 12:54 PM

It is just hard to believe that he was considered the conservative when next to McCain.

jeffn21 on November 3, 2011 at 12:54 PM

The stupidity of conservatives 9some):
So now NARAL is to be trusted? Tell me, do they want Romney elected? If so, why would they come forward with this “claim”, knowing it could cost him the nom? If they wanted him elected, they’d bury this story fast. So they must be doing the GOP a favor… award for the most gullible site goes to Hotair!

drballard on November 3, 2011 at 12:54 PM

There are countless videos of Mitt Romney saying he supports “safe legal abortions”

So, yes… I do think NARAL would support Mitt Romney.

tetriskid on November 3, 2011 at 12:57 PM

im just glad we have jason coleman, he’ll soon explain to us how this shows romney is the best and most acceptable candidate for conservative voters.

chasdal on November 3, 2011 at 12:57 PM

So they must be doing the GOP a favor… award for the most gullible site goes to Hotair!

drballard on November 3, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Romney was pro-choice at the time, right?

It’s not outside the bounds of believability that he’d use that and the R after his name to garner their support. They’d love some pro-choice R’s up there.

And, plus, it’s Mitt. Who is well known for saying anything to anyone to get their support.

lorien1973 on November 3, 2011 at 12:57 PM

So you admit Romney has no core convictions. He just says what he has to in order to get elected?

Your standards aren’t to high, are they?

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I know he cannot pass the conservative “purity” test that some apply to candidates. But neither can anybody else. Perry was a democrat for Pete’s sake. He was Al Gore’s campaign chairman.

hanzblinx on November 3, 2011 at 1:00 PM

It is just hard to believe that he was considered the conservative when next to McCain.

jeffn21 on November 3, 2011 at 12:54 PM

I agree but I’d still take Mitt over McCain. McCain has made a career of kicking conservatives in the teeth.

DanMan on November 3, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Since Romney claims he did socialized medicine ‘right’ in Mass, rather than overturn ObamaCare, he’ll claim the experience to “fix” it. How many David Souters or Anthony Kennedys will he appoint to SCOTUS? Ah, but the MSM will say,”He’s grown in office!”

cartooner on November 3, 2011 at 1:02 PM

I will never vote for this disgusting phony. I vastly prefer a second Obama term over Romney. A Romney nomination would be a complete disaster for the country, the conservative movement and the GOP.

Norwegian on November 3, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Old news. We all know Mitt is a flip/flopping, can’t we all just get along sort of guy. That is why I was so hoping another candidate would rise and defeat him. Right now that doesn’t look too promising.I will reluctantly vote for Romney if he is the Candidate because 4 more years of Obama would be disastrous.

sandee on November 3, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Kind of old news that Romney ran more to the left to get elected in the most liberal state in the union. In other words, this is already baked into his stock price.

hanzblinx on November 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Yes, that Romney ran to the left to get elected is old news. What is new news is that Romney told powerful liberal groups that if elected President he would be indispensable ally to them in Washington, and that by offering “centrist” support he would help mainstream liberal views. Its not news he ran to the left to get elected, its news that he promised to tack left once in the White House. Those quotes are from 2002; while they may be more in line with Romney’s more centrist 2012 campaign, they fly in the face of many positions he staked out in 2008. It is big news.

Lawdawg86 on November 3, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Shouldn’t the REAL story be who leaked this?

/s

BruinEric on November 3, 2011 at 1:04 PM

hanzblinx on November 3, 2011 at 1:00 PM

many many years ago. and perry has always been prolife, hell he’s been a republican longer than mitt has been prolife.

chasdal on November 3, 2011 at 1:05 PM

I am keeping my eyes open… but in the meantime –

I think Mitt’s “core convictions” are on display with his family life and other essential choices, as well as his professional/executive record. I think the essential nature of the man is found right there.

In any case, he’s going to be eviscerated by both the Left and Right for being LDS.

Prufrock on November 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Mitt = Obama with bigger hair and less of a tan.

PappyD61 on November 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Lawdawg86 on November 3, 2011 at 1:04 PM

looks like he’s been running for president much longer than anyone realized.

chasdal on November 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Ann Coulter to defend Romney in 5….4….3….

PappyD61 on November 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM

OT: Notice that “Hot Air” (hee) relegates the Oakland lefty riots and other OWS violence to the ephemeral headline section.

Main posts ,as usual, are about beltway political soap operas.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on November 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Conservatives won’t have a dog in next year’s fight unless Romney can be derailed.

Aitch748 on November 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Romney used to support abortion. I heard this once or twice, yes.

Red Cloud on November 3, 2011 at 1:07 PM

He does seem like a flip flopper, but when I look at my own views over the years, my positions have shifted some on gay rights, abortion and global warming and I am not trying to get elected to anything. I was rabidly pro-choice at one time in my life and anti-gay marriage but have moved away from both of those positions over time.

bopbottle on November 3, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I vastly prefer a second Obama term over Romney. A Romney nomination would be a complete disaster for the country, the conservative movement and the GOP.

Norwegian on November 3, 2011 at 1:03 PM

Right, because a second Obama term would be just woooooonderful for the country.

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 1:08 PM

“Pragmatically speaking, that allowed Schwarzenegger to win re-election. Did that benefit Republicans in California? Not at all, and some California Republicans believe that Schwarzenegger’s bad performance will remain a millstone around their necks for some time to come.”

Maybe the better question is did Arnold’s performance benefit the state of California? As a native I can emphatically answer in the negative…..

cab8505 on November 3, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I know he cannot pass the conservative “purity” test that some apply to candidates. But neither can anybody else. Perry was a democrat for Pete’s sake. He was Al Gore’s campaign chairman.

hanzblinx on November 3, 2011 at 1:00 PM

So your defense to Mitt Romney being a weak kneed, no core conviction, pandering phony is….

“Look at Rick Perry!”

You’re not in a good place hanz.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:09 PM

I know he cannot pass the conservative “purity” test that some apply to candidates. But neither can anybody else. Perry was a democrat for Pete’s sake. He was Al Gore’s campaign chairman.

hanzblinx on November 3, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Yet Perry (and Gore at the time) was more conservative than Romney. Nice try, tho’.

cartooner on November 3, 2011 at 1:10 PM

Right, because a second Obama term would be just woooooonderful for the country.

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 1:08 PM

With a Republican controlled House and Senate, Obama can be contained.

Romney with a Republican controlled House and Senate should make Every conservative wake up in the middle of the night screaming bloody terror and night sweats.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:11 PM

MittReagan has been a real good Conservative for over 5 years now!

Leave MittReagan alone!!!! He’s been good for 5 years now!

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 12:52 PM

You know it could have read like this at one time for Reagan after he switched his position as well.

Romney’s record as MA Governor was voting Pro-Life bills into law. He has said that he had a change of heart early in his term and has voted pro-life CONSISTENTLY ever since. So really going back to 2003.

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 1:13 PM

How do spell Romney?

W
E
A
S
E
L

Bruno Strozek on November 3, 2011 at 1:13 PM

I can’t keep track of Romney’s positions on abortion(or anything else, for that matter). But we should vote for him because he’s electable, or something. I’ll now wait for some idiot to respond by attacking me for my views, instead of attacking the empty suit that is the biggest disgrace on stage.

Remember, only one candidate actually signed the legislation that formed the basis for conservatives’ number one adversary, ObamaCare…and that candidate is Mitt Romney.

How did it come to this?

MadisonConservative on November 3, 2011 at 1:13 PM

“Anybody but Obama.” Such a carefully thought-out plan.

“Anybody but Obama.” Such a meticulously drawn argument.

“Anybody but Obama.” So subtle, so strategically canny.

I’m so proud of the intellectual heft on our side. Look where it’s taken us.

Bat Chain Puller on November 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM

I didn’t realize abortion and gay rights were a huge issue. Economy is in the dump, a little more important. Nothing with gay rights and abortion will change under Romney. There’s a Democrat in the white house, he did have Democrat power in the house and senate – he never touched gay rights.

Bush was President for 8 years, nothing substantial changed with Abortion or gay rights under him either. People need to stop making huge issues out of none issues and worry about the important stuff.

paultevis on November 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Here’s the fundamental problem Ed: This country has some difficult choices to make in the next four to eight years regarding how big of a government we want and we can afford. A conservative president is going to have to have the ability to withstand critcism and conflict and speak to the country about the real financial problems facing this country.

Where in all of his history has Romney ever shown that kind of political courage?

PackerBronco on November 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM

He’s the most selectable candidate…

the_nile on November 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM

bopbottle on November 3, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Yes, but with the speed that Romney evolves I expect him to become an X-Man any day.

cartooner on November 3, 2011 at 1:15 PM

He does seem like a flip flopper, but when I look at my own views over the years, my positions have shifted some on gay rights, abortion and global warming and I am not trying to get elected to anything. I was rabidly pro-choice at one time in my life and anti-gay marriage but have moved away from both of those positions over time.

bopbottle on November 3, 2011 at 1:08 PM

I think most of have on certain views over the years from our youths into adulthood and even as adults as “facts” or situations warrant it we change our point of view.

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 1:15 PM

With a Republican controlled House and Senate, Obama can be contained.

Romney with a Republican controlled House and Senate should make Every conservative wake up in the middle of the night screaming bloody terror and night sweats.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:11 PM

That is my sentiment too.

Heck, if Romney if the nominee, I could easily see myself voting for Obama and then Republican downticket (if I could even could be bothered to vote).

Norwegian on November 3, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Heck, if Romney if the nominee, I could easily see myself voting for Obama and then Republican downticket (if I could even could be bothered to vote).

Norwegian on November 3, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Glad to see you support Obamacare that much.

Red Cloud on November 3, 2011 at 1:20 PM

You know it could have read like this at one time for Reagan after he switched his position as well.

Romney’s record as MA Governor was voting Pro-Life bills into law. He has said that he had a change of heart early in his term and has voted pro-life CONSISTENTLY ever since. So really going back to 2003.

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Comparing Romney to Reagan??

That’s a big no-no.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Comparing Romney to Reagan??

That’s a big no-no.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Totally agree. That would mess up the narrative. Can’t have that.

Red Cloud on November 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM

I guess we haven’t hit rock bottom yet. If we’re even contemplating Mitt Romney, we haven’t. Four more years if Obama should get us there.

rrpjr on November 3, 2011 at 1:22 PM

With a Republican controlled House and Senate, Obama can be contained.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:11 PM

I see you trust the GOP gatekeepers in the Congress to not falter more than I do.

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Fear not. He said he’d push for repeal of Romneycare…I mean Obamacare…if elected. He said it in the last debate. Surely we can take him at his word.

SouthernGent on November 3, 2011 at 1:25 PM

It’s also possible that President Mitt Romney might turn into Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who folded his common-sense conservative tent after getting one bloody nose in a referendum fight and aligned himself with liberal Democrats in California.

Everybody here who thinks Mitt would fold after getting a bloody nose, raise your hand.

I’ll go first.

a capella on November 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Did that benefit Republicans in California?

Only if you enjoy eating dirt for dinner everyday…

… Romney/Herbert Hunstman 2012!!!

/

Seven Percent Solution on November 3, 2011 at 1:26 PM

The question is less that Romney has an “ever-evolving ideology,” though, than whether Romney has any ideology at all.

Sure he does!

It is: get Mitt Romney elected.

The simplest of ideologies ever invented.

ajacksonian on November 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM

once this was posted in the headlines, just a matter of time before it was spun into a full post…

soooo predictable

gatorboy on November 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM

I see you trust the GOP gatekeepers in the Congress to not falter more than I do.

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 1:23 PM

I trust a GOP congress to go against Obama more than I trust them to Go against Romney.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM

It’s going to be Newt. Yes, he sat on a couch with Pelosi. Yes, he has gotten divorced. However, he’s the only articulate conservative on the stage right now who can actually debate Obama.

He can be a jerk, but sometimes, that’s exactly what you need.

cpaulus on November 3, 2011 at 1:28 PM

At times like now we need Basil Marceaux to run for President.

simkeith on November 3, 2011 at 1:28 PM

“Anybody but Obama.” Such a carefully thought-out plan.

“Anybody but Obama.” Such a meticulously drawn argument.

“Anybody but Obama.” So subtle, so strategically canny.

I’m so proud of the intellectual heft on our side. Look where it’s taken us.

Bat Chain Puller on November 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Delicately put.

MadisonConservative on November 3, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Kind of old news that Romney ran more to the left to get elected in the most liberal state in the union. In other words, this is already baked into his stock price.

hanzblinx on November 3, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Not really. Here he’s pretty much outlining a strategy of gaining national political office intentionally to “moderate” the Republican party.

He’s talking about a stealth attack on what’s left of conservative values in the party.

29Victor on November 3, 2011 at 1:29 PM

I see you trust the GOP gatekeepers in the Congress to not falter more than I do.

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 1:23 PM

I wonder if those same gatekeepers would protect the American voter against carbon emission legislation if their Republican president was for it.

a capella on November 3, 2011 at 1:30 PM

being able to get elected might not be an awful epithet to toss

And continuing the same policies as before helps…how? I see more of the same, but with a bit more friendly attitude towards business.

Another bite @ cap & tax? amnesty? increasing Obamney care coverage?

We’ll never win the argument with the left if we don’t ever challenge their assumptions.

I R A Darth Aggie on November 3, 2011 at 1:31 PM

He does seem like a flip flopper, but when I look at my own views over the years, my positions have shifted some on gay rights, abortion and global warming and I am not trying to get elected to anything. I was rabidly pro-choice at one time in my life and anti-gay marriage but have moved away from both of those positions over time.

bopbottle on November 3, 2011 at 1:08 PM

As do most, but I have yet to hear from Romney the reason behind the change in his views.. I can tell you exactly when I changed my view to abmbivalantly pro-choice to a more outspoken pro-life. It was in early November of 2002 between noon and about 1:30. We know about Reagan’s change of heart, we know about Abbey Johnson’s change of heart…..

As for global warming I have always been a skeptic remembering the great ice age warnings from the 70′s and the same folks pushing it. I agree with Cain’s more simple explanation of “poppycock”.

I did vote for McCain (actually I voted for Palin), and I voted for Arnold (then left the state after all of his wonderful new policies).. After seeing how the mainstream GOP (the ones who convinced me to vote for Arnold and McCain), treated Palin after the election and the impotence of McCain after the election… I have decided I will not vote for Romney period. He is of the exact same ilk as McCain and Arnold and Bush Sr. and Dole and Ford and so on ad infinitum… I’ll send a message to the good old mainstream and vote indy or libertarian… maybe then they will wake up. I will work my butt off for down ticket House/Senate races supporting such folk as Rand Paul, Mike Lee, and Mr. Johnson… They should be the new face of the GOP.

kringeesmom on November 3, 2011 at 1:31 PM

I trust a GOP congress to go against Obama more than I trust them to Go against Romney.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM

What if it’s Romney/Ryan, and Paul Ryan doesn’t win re-election back to the House? Still feeling as good? Still want Obama to win?

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 1:32 PM

My caption for that picture:

“I’m going to tell you a lie this big.”

backwoods conservative on November 3, 2011 at 1:34 PM

What if it’s Romney/Ryan, and Paul Ryan doesn’t win re-election back to the House? Still feeling as good? Still want Obama to win?

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 1:32 PM

40 House Republicans just signed on for higher taxes today…

so Paul Ryan doesn’t mean anything.

Any combination of Mitt Romney is still a turd sandwich.

tetriskid on November 3, 2011 at 1:36 PM

As a former liberal, I can safely way that the only Republican that liberals can stomach voting for is Romney–and they know Obama is ruining the country. It’s Mittens, I fear, or Commie Obami II.

PattyJ on November 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I see you trust the GOP gatekeepers in the Congress to not falter more than I do.

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 1:23 PM

I trust a GOP congress to go against Obama more than I trust them to Go against Romney.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM

EXACTLY. See: Bush/GOP budgets 2002-2006

Bat Chain Puller on November 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM

I dont know how this is news, everyone knows he was pro choice before he was pro life. I dont get what the big revelation is.

nswider on November 3, 2011 at 1:38 PM

What if it’s Romney/Ryan, and Paul Ryan doesn’t win re-election back to the House? Still feeling as good? Still want Obama to win?

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Is Paul Ryan some sort of firewall or something? Did he stop the Handful of Repubs who voted for Tax hikes today?

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:41 PM

What if it’s Romney/Ryan, and Paul Ryan doesn’t win re-election back to the House? Still feeling as good? Still want Obama to win?

Ryan needed to run for president. Plain and simple. He missed his chance to make a real difference in the direction of the country.

cpaulus on November 3, 2011 at 1:41 PM

The stupidity of conservatives 9some):
So now NARAL is to be trusted? Tell me, do they want Romney elected? If so, why would they come forward with this “claim”, knowing it could cost him the nom? If they wanted him elected, they’d bury this story fast. So they must be doing the GOP a favor… award for the most gullible site goes to Hotair!

drballard on November 3, 2011 at 12:54 PM

It’s like playing three dimensional chess with a Sicilian? Romney promises to be the pro-choice Republican in Washington but since it is WaPo reporting the story we shouldn’t believe it…This is almost as wacky as Knucklehead dismissing questions about Cain because they came from Ace of Spades.

Bill C on November 3, 2011 at 1:49 PM

This is what primaries are for, know the facts, put it on context and make up your own mind. To me, I dont see the relevance of this, the fact that he went from being pro choice to pro life is pretty well documented. But I know this bothers other people, so vote accordingly.

nswider on November 3, 2011 at 1:52 PM

As a former liberal, I can safely way that the only Republican that liberals can stomach voting for is Romney–and they know Obama is ruining the country. It’s Mittens, I fear, or Commie Obami II.

PattyJ on November 3, 2011 at 1:37 PM

We don’t need liberal votes. That is why we are trying to nominate a conservative.

Bill C on November 3, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Your standards aren’t to high, are they?

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Get over it already. Romney is the only guy who can beat Obama.

How did it come to this?

MadisonConservative on November 3, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Oh, I dunno’, some folks with an agenda using crap reporting in an attempt to destroy other candidates. Now, if I could just remember who was oh so proud of it when they claimed to be the first to show how awful Perry was…

cozmo on November 3, 2011 at 1:54 PM

So I guess Block just went on Fox and rescinded the allegations against Perry camp. This entire nomination process is just a total clustermess.

nswider on November 3, 2011 at 1:57 PM

I don’t care if Romney passes or doesn’t pass some “purity test”. I just want to know how can he be trusted if he only does and says “what it takes” to get elected.

How do I know who he really is and what he really believes if he is so comfortable in his fluidity? He seems the perfect guy to be pressured by any number of influencial groups to see things their way…

I simply don’t trust him.

Fallon on November 3, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Bat Chain Puller on November 3, 2011 at 1:14 PM

At this point there is nothing wrong with being ABO. It is those who are out to destroy candidates they don’t approve of who have a problem.

Now is tire kicking and vetting time. The time to chose is when a person’s primary is near.

cozmo on November 3, 2011 at 1:58 PM

Get over it already. Romney is the only guy who can beat Obama.

cozmo on November 3, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Besides Supreme Court picks, how would Romney govern differently from Obama?

They both share a deep love of socialized medicine.

They both agree on Global Warming.

They both agree on the Auto Bail-outs.

They both agree on Cap & Tax.

I’m not seeing a big difference here.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I’m not seeing a big difference here.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 2:00 PM

The difference is in throttle setting. Obama versus Slobama.

SKYFOX on November 3, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Besides Supreme Court picks, how would Romney govern differently from Obama?

I’m not seeing a big difference here.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Deal with it. Embrace all that is Romney.

cozmo on November 3, 2011 at 2:07 PM

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 2:00 PM

Wow. Blatant falsehoods, Romney has said that hes against Cap and trade, repeatedly. He came out with an op/ed against the auto bailouts, Romney plans to repeal Obamacare and Romney has said that while he doesnt know what causes global warming that its called “global warming” not “america warming” and he would not allow any anti business regulations to combat something hes not even sure is happening. Your just totally wrong.

nswider on November 3, 2011 at 2:08 PM

Is Paul Ryan some sort of firewall or something? Did he stop the Handful of Repubs who voted for Tax hikes today?

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:41 PM

So then your argument that they would stand firm against Obama doesn’t hold much water then. Because they could be doing so, and they aren’t currently.

You think they’re all growing spines post-election?

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 2:13 PM

im just glad we have jason coleman, he’ll soon explain to us how this shows romney is the best and most acceptable candidate for conservative voters.

Do you have a link for Coleman touting Romney?
I like his comments. Researched and reasoned. Never saw that.

katy the mean old lady on November 3, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Again many of you need to actually read Romney’s VOTES and not what HA columnists are posting on something we knew about back in 2002…once elected he has Governed as a PRO-LIFE Governor and will as a President. He even signed bills into law and vetoed bills that were against life so there is your proof! Look at the record!

It gets taxing some days reading some of the posts here when you know they are not making an educated and detailed look at where a candidate stands and votes.

Some on here attack with wild accusations that are not backed by facts. Similar to the Cain attackers, until there is proof by these women these are just false attacks. See I can and will support any false attack on our candidates…trust me, Obama will not hold back on falsifying their records.

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 2:17 PM

As I wrote on a very similar Headline thread:

Mitt was a tender youth in 2002 of 55. He converted to pro-life two years later, once he no longer needed to win office in Massachusetts.

He reminds me of a friend of mine who described himself as of the “Coincidental” faith. If someone told him that they were Jewish or Catholic or Atheist, he would say “What a coincidence! Me too!” My buddy just didn’t care about the subject.

Ed’s right: He WILL be the GOP nominee unless the conservatives settle behind one opponent.

theCork on November 3, 2011 at 2:18 PM

See I can and will support any false attack on our candidates

haha that should have said “support our candidates AGAINST any false attacks”

too tired…

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 2:19 PM

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 2:19 PM

lol. I hear you man, being a Romney supporter on here can get exhausting. The facts in your post dont fit the narrative, so my guess is they will just be ignored. Im used to it, lol.

nswider on November 3, 2011 at 2:21 PM

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Whew, I was wondering if all the up and down was getting to you.

cozmo on November 3, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Still waiting for the “Real Conservative” Great Pumpkin to rise up from the Pumpkin Patch and lead us all to victory. Until then, nobody is pure enough and nobody is good enough and like Linus, I’m going to sit here and suck on my blanket and stroke my principles. ;-)

rhombus on November 3, 2011 at 2:23 PM

rhombus on November 3, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Ha! Enjoyed that, funny.

nswider on November 3, 2011 at 2:24 PM

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 2:17 PM

so he lied to the pro abortion groups?? and you think he wont lie to conservatives if it serves his purposes?? the bottom line is he lied to one side, i dont care which, it shows a lack of character and integrity and that he cant be trusted

chasdal on November 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Whew, I was wondering if all the up and down was getting to you.

cozmo on November 3, 2011 at 2:22 PM

haha that was good!

no,its the long 14-15 hour days over here in AFG and then coming on here and seeing what the new attack against Romney is for the day…even though he is the SAME candidate that many supported in 2008…scratches head!?

My belief is that people will realize that Romney is the steady candidate we need as others rise and fall and he will surprise many on HA here, in a good way, that he will be a great president.

Good nite all!

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Still waiting for the “Real Conservative” Great Pumpkin to rise up from the Pumpkin Patch …

rhombus on November 3, 2011 at 2:23 PM

How about Jon Huntsman? He’s almost kind of orange.
;-)

Abby Adams on November 3, 2011 at 2:26 PM

I’d keep the “liberal” Mitt Romney over the dumb charlatan cowboy, the two womanizer from Georgia, the crazy eyes nut job, the other nut job (the libertarian one) or the loser from Pennsylvania.

Falz on November 3, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Good nite all!

g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Son hated all the up and down.

While I don’t share your enthusiasm for Romney, I figure he will do well if elected. I just prefer Cain, Perry or Gingrich, though I may rethink the Cain support.

‘Night and be careful over there.

cozmo on November 3, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Falz on November 3, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Sure you would.

Bless your heart and go fluff.

cozmo on November 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM

chasdal on November 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Thats not fair, he was pro choice at the time, so he wasnt lying to them. In 2005 he became pro life, he changed his mind. I believe it was genuine, others dont, so it just depends on your view point.

nswider on November 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM

I trust a GOP congress to go against Obama more than I trust them to Go against Romney.

portlandon on November 3, 2011 at 1:27 PM

True. Gridlock is better than implementing a liberal agenda under the GOP mantle.

This is the only half-way decent answer I’ve ever heard for not voting in 2012 if Romney is nominated. Of course, this is only true if someone stops President Obama from implementing his agenda via executive orders & regulation.

29Victor on November 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM

even though he is the SAME candidate that many supported in 2008…scratches head!?
g2825m on November 3, 2011 at 2:25 PM

You mean the same candidate who failed to earn enough support to win in 2008? That is, the same candidate who lost in 2008. That is, the loser?

rrpjr on November 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM

nswider on November 3, 2011 at 2:33 PM

who’s vote was scrounging for in 2005? what ephiphany occured that made him rethink this long held view of his??

chasdal on November 3, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Romney is unelectable.

Cain isn’t being hurt by the phony story of unnamed sources and spliced storyline.

Cain will be the next President, so I suggest that the other candidates supporters attempt to get in good with him now, so we can fix the nations woes as soon as President Cain is sworn in.

LeeSeneca on November 3, 2011 at 2:38 PM

LeeSeneca on November 3, 2011 at 2:38 PM

wouldnt bet on that yet, a guy who lashes out like he did yesterday after his own fumbling and bumbling made a manageable crisis worse aint fit to be president.

chasdal on November 3, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2