If Senator Santorum would focus on positive stuff and not spend every debate attacking every other Republican on the stage, he might actually start gaining traction in Iowa.
3, yes, it is a shame when Mitt attacks, too. I hate when candidates go negative, especially when the blows are low. Almost all the candidates have done it, some more than others.
4 and 5, exactly. That’s why I like this ad so much. He has become known for negative attacks. At the last debate, he was the person that attacked the most (with the possible exception of the Perry vs Romney war) and that’s how it has usually been. This ad is the type of thing he really needs to make a good impression and gain traction in Iowa.
This was very moving. But, in practical terms, I can’t see that it accomplishes much beyond the obvious: showing the soft side of Santorum in order to counter the vibe he has given off in debates of being a testy, crotchety grouch.
Since there’s no indication of the overtly political, I guess it’s meant to reintroduce Santorum more than anything else. It might succeed at that, although it’s probably not enough as only a web ad.
“Like it or not, the governor has been on opposite sides on a lot of issues,” Perry said. “He was for banning handguns, now he’s Mr. Second Amendment. He was the father of Obamacare.
Oh OOOOHHHH!!!
Perry just accused Mitt of wanting to Ban Handguns.
You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Why didn’t Santorum and Perry lead with impressive, positive ads about themselves? Then if they shoot up in the polls and people start attacking THEM, respond in kind. Promote your own merits instead of lame, snarky, ineffective attacks on others.
8, agreed. This does a good job of repainting him as a soft, compassionate conservative. If he were to run something like this in Iowa (if he had the funding), I think it would have good potential in resurrecting his campaign.
Touching story but it does nothing to make me want to vote for Rick Santorum. With such scarce resources I question whether this is the type of ad he needs to be producing. It strikes me that a touching personal story ad like this should only be run to embellish the story of a candidate whose qualifications are already well known and understood. Once a candidate has shown why they are fit for the job, they can augment that with a personal story but Rick seems to have that backwards.
For Perry, I don’t think his campaign really thought he’d have to do too much in order to win. They looked at the polls and saw it coming down to Romney vs. Bachmann and probably thought “this’ll be too easy. We won’t even have to work that hard to win.”
How can you call someone “Mitt the switch”. After your period of mourning following T-Paw’s withdrawal, I remember your profound statement of support for Romney. What happened. Haven’t you flipped?
In a 2002 debate during Romney’s campaign for governor of Massachusetts, Romney said: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.
…Believe they protect us and provide for our safety….BRRAAHHHWWWAAAAAA!!!!
My gun provides me with safety…not your gun control laws Mitt!
Mitt, the Rockefeller panderer, of course some of you will say…well…well….he was a Gov of MASS…it will be different when he is President.
This is why Romney can’t close the deal with me. He has never led a Conservative fight in his state or nation.
22, do you even know what the gun laws were in Massachusetts? Without that knowledge, you CANNOT make a judgment here. Some strong laws are necessary. THAT is one of the many reasons I support Gov Romney. He’s REASONABLE. He understands that extremes on either side are rarely the right answer.
You are correct. I’m guilty of flip flopping..and I admit it. Something Mitt can’t do.
After TPAW wnet out of the race I knew that Perry was a dope and should not be President. I always knew that Bachmann is a NUT JOB and that Cain was not up for the job.
As I watched this race from a distant I could not warm up to Mitt at all. He is a good man but not a political Conservative man. Mitt will not move Conservative mountains.
Newt is an imperfect man who has been unfaithful, and he has admit it.
But he is a Movement Conservative who deserves Smackdaddy to weigh in on his side.
My neighbor owns a whole collection of rifles and shotguns, no problem.
I have a shotgun myself.
My neighbor’s cousin owns a collection of high-capacity fully-automatic assault rifles, including an AK-47, a Colt .45, a semiautomatic shotgun, and a turret-mounted M50.
That was a nice ad. I have a good friend who had a baby a couple of years ago with Trisomy 18 (the same condition as Santorum’s daughter). My friend’s daughter lived just 30 days.
But while it was a touching story, it didn’t tell me anything about Santorum’s preparation for the hardest job in the world. I have nothing against the guy, but he has done nothing to persuade me to support him.
ANYONE in Massachusetts may own ANY gun. The ONLY restriction is that you can’t own a machine gun unless you’re a police trainer or a collector. You can own 50-cal sniper rifles, revolvers, fully automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic handguns and shotguns, etc.
When Romney once said “we have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them” – he was talking about the simple requirement that people take a gun safety course and pass a background check before buying a gun, and that you register the gun with your local police.
The state government here has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning a gun.
During his 1994 senate campaign and 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, Romney said he would have a better policy providing for domestic partnerships than his Democratic opponents. In 1994, Romney sent a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights in the Senate than his opponent at the time, Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
30 – If the Senate and House were an over 90 percent Democratic veto-proof supermajority, it might be similar circumstances. Fortunately they aren’t, and aren’t likely to ever be.
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research in general terms, and he promised to lobby George W. Bush to embrace such research. During his presidential campaign, 2008, however, Romney renounced his 2002 position and said that he now agrees with Bush’s decision to ban federal funding for research on excess embryos.
Alright. Interesting. As you said, at least you admit it but I’ll tell you something (and I’ve said it before) that I always liked about you and that is that you were a steadfast cheerleader for Pawlenty. I don’t remember you knocking any other candidate, you just keep promoting your guy; over and over again and with great fervor, you told us why you supported Pawlenty. I always liked that and thought everyone else here needed to follow suit. As a Romney guy, I’m a bit disappointed that you’ve flipped to Newt (although I like Newt too) and decided to become like Sojourner who mostly just attacks.
32. Smack, Here’s Governor Romney’s record on guns in MA
Every year that Gov. Romney was in office he worked for and signed at least one pro-second amendment/pro-sportsmen bill into law. These actions were done in support of and in collaboration with the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), and its affiliate, the Gun Owner’s Action League (GOAL):
Massachusetts — Governor To Sign Inland Fish and Game Fund Bill
Governor Romney issued a proclamation declaring May 7, 2005 as “Right to Bear Arms Day”.
Governor Romney suspended “administrative fees” to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Fund.
Massachusetts — Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s Desk
Massachusetts — S.2255 Signed by Governor Romney!
Massachusetts — Governor Signs Pro-Gun Legislation Into Law!
“The Hunter Education bill, S.469, was signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney on July 6, 2006.
During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk…
“His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006.
GROVER NORQUIST from the board of directors of the NRA:
“Guns and Romney. Romney’s position on guns is flawless … I went and worked with the governor back when the D’s were planning on passing a restriction on 50 caliber rifles in Massachusetts. And he committed to me that he would oppose any restrictions… his position is fine.”
Romney is becoming a candidate alone on an island.
Let me give you some data that might give you the shivers.
According to the last PPP Iowa the front line nmbers went like this:
Cain 30%
Romney 22%
Gingrich 08%
As Cain falls in Iowa Gingrich will replace him.
Take a look at these FAV/UNFAVS among each candidates supporters.
Iowa: Gingrich
Bachmann supporters:
Gingrich 42/30
Cain supporters:
Gingrich 64/32
Huntsman Supporters:
Gingrich 47/53
Paul Supporters:
Gingrich 39/49
Perry Supporters:
Gingrich 44/26
Romney supporters:
Gingrich 51/40
Santorum supporters:
Gingrich 65/24
…now compare that to the following.
Iowa: Romney
Bachmann supporters:
Romney 22/65
Cain supporters:
Romney 43/47
Huntsman Supporters:
Romney 47/53
Paul Supporters:
Romney 27/57
Perry Supporters:
Romney 34/38
Gingrich supporters:
Romney 48/32
Santorum supporters:
Romney 43/52
Newth has better FAV/UNFAV numbers among all the other candidates supporters then Mitt in Iowa….except for Huntsman where they are tied.
Also Gingrich gets 26% among Cain supporters for 2nd choice while Romney only gets 13%. And Newt receives 30% of 2nd choice voters of Paul supporters and Romney gets 5% of them.
I look for a surprising good number for Newt in Iowa out of that DMR poll tomorrow.
I too thought this ad was very nice. However, it did not give me a reason to want to vote for Santorum for president. Nor did it motivate me to check out his website. It did make me think that he would be another great leader for the prolife cause.
34. Smack, here’s Romney’s ACTUAL record on gay rights:
Governor Romney has maintained a consistent view regarding gay issues:
1.) Gays should be treated with respect and not be discriminated against,
2.) but traditional marriage must be preserved.
“Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, is urging the adoption of a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”
TIME – Popping The Question – Dec 1, 2003
when the constitutional amendment received preliminary approval from the legislature, Mr. Romney, a Republican, asked the state attorney general, Thomas F. Reilly, to ask the court to stay the May 17 start date. But Mr. Reilly, a Democrat … refused to represent Mr. Romney or appoint another lawyer to do so,
“Romney, however, has used his bully pulpit to call for a total ban on gay marriage. The legislature complied, but only on an amendment that also permitted civil unions. Romney wasn’t happy about this. He also had no alternative. ”If I have to choose between gay marriages and civil unions,” he says, ”I’ll choose civil unions every time.” ”
”I believe that the best and most reliable way to protect traditional marriage is through a federal marriage amendment, as opposed to letting activist judges make policy on a state-by-state basis,” he [Governor Romney] said in a statement.
When all legal efforts failed to prevent or delay same-sex marriages before the court imposed deadline, the governor found a legal means to prevent out of state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts, stating:
”Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage. We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation.”
Governor Romney fought for a marriage amendment his whole term in office. Even in his last two months in office, he kept fighting the legislature to place “a marriage amendment on the 2008 state ballot.” This would allow the state’s constitution to be amended to prevent same-sex marriages. He went so far as to join with state citizens to sue the legislature since, “The constitution of Massachusetts gives citizens the right to petition — and lawmakers are obligated to vote on that petition. They are refusing to do so.” (More than 170,000 people had signed the petition.)
Governor Romney stated in a speech at the capitol: “I was struck by the irony and the hypocrisy. Legislators so energized to protect the newly discovered gay right to marry had no compunction about trammeling the long established, constitutional right of the people to vote.”
Also, one month after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, Governor Romney testified before the U.S. Congress of the importance of an amendment to protect traditional marriage.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, in his testimony on June 22, 2004, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated:
“Marriage is not an evolving paradigm, as the court said, but it is a fundamental and universal social institution that bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of all the people of Massachusetts.
“We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, [and] blocks judges from changing that definition ….. at this point, the only way to reestablish the status quo ….. is to preserve the definition of marriage in the federal Constitution before courts redefine it out of existence.”
Also note that Republican Governor Schwarzenegger refused to support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn the CA ruling.
And, Connecticut Republican Governor Rell said that while she disagreed with the ruling she would not fight to reverse the CN decision.
Romney’s actions as governor were about as conservative as could be under the circumstances.
‘Despite this fiscal achievement, a pair of social issues has done far more to define Romney’s governorship: gay marriage and embryonic-stem-cell research. On either matter, a good case can be made that Romney has fought harder for social conservatives than any other governor in America, and it is difficult to imagine his doing so in a more daunting political environment. “On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor,” says Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute. “On a scale of one to ten, I’d rank him an eight, and I’m a tough grader.”
A man from Londonderry, N.H., asked if Romney was ‘willing to upset a lot of countries to take care of America first.’
“‘The answer is yes,’ said Romney. ‘And you may say, ‘Well, prove it.’ It’s hard to prove but I can tell you this: I don’t have a career in politics. This, for me, is not the next step in my political career to run for president. As you know, I was governor for four years and I point out that I didn’t inhale.’
“Romney’s actions as governor were about as conservative as could be under the circumstances”
So Romney lied during his 1994 senate campaign and 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign when he said he would have a better policy providing for domestic partnerships than his Democratic opponents, and in 1994 when Mitt sent a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights in the Senate than his opponent at the time, Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
#49 Mitt has always been for benefits for Gays, but he has always been against redefining marriage. Gays are still people, they do need benefits ya know.
36. Smack, Romney differentiates between two different kinds of Stem Cell Research.
More facts…
Governor Romney is pro-life, and like Ronald Reagan, once supported abortion rights.
However, unlike Ronald Reagan, who signed an abortion law while governor that caused abortions in his state to sky-rocket, Mitt Romney has a consistent pro-life record as governor.
As Ronald Reagan’s son, well known conservative pundit Michael Reagan, has said, “Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives”
He vetoed the emergency contraception bill.
From the National Review (Feb 11, 2005)
“Romney has started out of the gates playing it straight. ”I am in favor of stem-cell research. I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning,’
Romney fought the liberal legislature:
”We’re very disappointed that the Romney administration is not honoring the intent of the Legislature, who voted overwhelmingly to protect the health of rape victims,” said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts…”
Romney added an ammendment to the stem cell bill to prohibit cloning.
From National Review, May, 2005
Mitt Romney can probably hear his echo when he gathers those who are standing with him on this fight, but that’s not stopping him from trying.
Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed a bill Friday that would expand embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, but the measure has more than enough support in the Legislature to override the governor’s veto.
Governor Romney passed a medical plan that reduces the number of people who receive state funded abortions.
#52 Smack is erratic. He’s a mess and all over the place, but the important thing is that he will be voting for Romney. Yeah, he may be politically whoring around at the moment, but alas he will repent and return after spending his inheritance, so to speak, and we will prepare a feast for him when he returns
#56 Keith, Smack is lost but will be found! Some individuals just can’t make the right decisions until they hit rock bottom. I thought he’d hit rock bottom after T-Paw dropped out….guess I was wrong
Craig For Losers on the other hand is the type that will continue to make bad judgment call after judgment call because he is a glutton for punishment. Alas, he will be voting for Romney as well
49. Smack, your comments are growing tiresome and convey what appears to be willful ignorance, or a desire to mislead others. In regards to Romney’s claim to the Log Cabin Republicans, what Romney was saying is that if he, as a Republican, were advocating for domestic partnership laws, it would have more impact than Kennedy, as a Democrat, taking more liberal positions–not that his views were to the left of Kennedy. As the gay movement evolved and began seeking for gay marriage, Romney fought hard for traditional marriage.
Good work Keith. You can try and twist Romney’s record Spank, but trust me, we “rombots” have been defending Romney for almost 6 years from these empty attacks, and there is very little you can throw at us that we have not already heard. And if it is indeed true that Newt is your man, I don’t think you want to get in the ring with us on his record.
1) Smack is a troll. He may have fooled us with him humour but he’s still one big fat troll.
2) Speaking of trolls, and JP characters, randomsmell is actually 100% correct that Ricky S’s ad is a nothing more than a pathetic attempt to use him family as a prop. I can’t believe most of you fell for it.
I think a clean attack on issues is a desirable trait in a candidate. Perry’s bigotry is low grade, and Santorum’s petty interrupting is bad form. Romney gets it right as far as I’m concerned. Real decent type.
Oh yeah. I watched it now. It is a beautiful story, and just like Palin, one more reason Santorum should not be president. He has a more important calling right there. Stay home and be a fabulous father, Santorum. Re-submit your paperwork when the kids are all grown.
In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it?
Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?
And George Will is offering up his opinion as it stands at the moment. He’s gone through phases of praising Romney. Now he seems to be in a different phase.
Anyway Smack, Newt is incredibly undisapplined, both politically and personally, but if you think he’s our best shot at beating Obama and cleaning up after him, then you would be doing us all a favor by showing WHY that is rather then just trying to smear Romney with half truths and out of context gotcha sound bits…
By the way Smack, sadly, Pawlenty didn’t gain any traction, but he’s the only other candidate after Mitt that I thought would do a decent job as POTUS.
Just so you know.
And I’m very glad that both Pawlenty and Christie are backing Mitt…
This is a shameless ad trying to use the unfortunate health situation of a child to gain sympathy votes. It won’t work. No one wants you as president Rick. It will be nice when you are no longer on the debate stage so we can actually give some time to the real contenders to elaborate on their positions instead of wasting it with questions to you, which you don’t even answer since you just attack others positions instead of laying out your own. Go away
October 28th, 2011 at 8:07 pm
Kavon,
Thank you for posting that ad.
Rick Santorum,
Thank you for sharing your story.
Beautiful.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Thank you Santorum for a positive ad. Well done. Santorum can be so positive. It’s a shame when he attacks others the way he has.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Jeff,
No it’s not.
Is it a shame when Mitt attacks?
No, of course not.
Attack away Rick!
October 28th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
If Senator Santorum would focus on positive stuff and not spend every debate attacking every other Republican on the stage, he might actually start gaining traction in Iowa.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:28 pm
3
But ALL Santorum DOES is attack.
Plus, a 3%er needs to make a good first impression, something Santorum hasn’t even considered attempting.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
3, yes, it is a shame when Mitt attacks, too. I hate when candidates go negative, especially when the blows are low. Almost all the candidates have done it, some more than others.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
4 and 5, exactly. That’s why I like this ad so much. He has become known for negative attacks. At the last debate, he was the person that attacked the most (with the possible exception of the Perry vs Romney war) and that’s how it has usually been. This ad is the type of thing he really needs to make a good impression and gain traction in Iowa.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
This was very moving. But, in practical terms, I can’t see that it accomplishes much beyond the obvious: showing the soft side of Santorum in order to counter the vibe he has given off in debates of being a testy, crotchety grouch.
Since there’s no indication of the overtly political, I guess it’s meant to reintroduce Santorum more than anything else. It might succeed at that, although it’s probably not enough as only a web ad.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Speaking of attacks…
Perry just said this in a NH Radio Interview.
“Like it or not, the governor has been on opposite sides on a lot of issues,” Perry said. “He was for banning handguns, now he’s Mr. Second Amendment. He was the father of Obamacare.
Oh OOOOHHHH!!!
Perry just accused Mitt of wanting to Ban Handguns.
FOOD FIGHT!!!
You know who this helps?
Mr. Positivity, Newt Gingrich
Gingrich/Blackburn 2012!
October 28th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
oooopes…I forgot to post the link to where Perry accuses Mitt of wanting to ban handguns.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/
hehhehhhehhehheeeee…
October 28th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
9, I would love to see a Gingrich vs Romney final showdown.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Why didn’t Santorum and Perry lead with impressive, positive ads about themselves? Then if they shoot up in the polls and people start attacking THEM, respond in kind. Promote your own merits instead of lame, snarky, ineffective attacks on others.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
8, agreed. This does a good job of repainting him as a soft, compassionate conservative. If he were to run something like this in Iowa (if he had the funding), I think it would have good potential in resurrecting his campaign.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:54 pm
Oh spare me.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Touching story but it does nothing to make me want to vote for Rick Santorum. With such scarce resources I question whether this is the type of ad he needs to be producing. It strikes me that a touching personal story ad like this should only be run to embellish the story of a candidate whose qualifications are already well known and understood. Once a candidate has shown why they are fit for the job, they can augment that with a personal story but Rick seems to have that backwards.
October 28th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
#12:
For Perry, I don’t think his campaign really thought he’d have to do too much in order to win. They looked at the polls and saw it coming down to Romney vs. Bachmann and probably thought “this’ll be too easy. We won’t even have to work that hard to win.”
October 28th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
So what is it?
Did “Mitt the switch” at one point advocate the banning of Handguns?
Or did Perry fasly accuse Mitt of doing something which he did not do?
October 28th, 2011 at 9:05 pm
11
Totally agreed.
Gingrich is not a dumbass or a psycho, he’s just unelectable and unfaithful.
At least if my choice is Gingrich or Romney, I could keep my blood pressure at normal levels.
Plus, it’s a battle Romney cannot lose.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Smack
Romney NEVER was for banning handguns, NEVER.
NEVER.
Rick Perry is a liar, and a SCUMBAG.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
17
The yes, he did accuse Mitt of something he never did nor said.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
#17 Smack,
How can you call someone “Mitt the switch”. After your period of mourning following T-Paw’s withdrawal, I remember your profound statement of support for Romney. What happened. Haven’t you flipped?
October 28th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Perry will need to answer for this lie…
Mitt will need to answer for this statement:
In a 2002 debate during Romney’s campaign for governor of Massachusetts, Romney said: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.
…Believe they protect us and provide for our safety….BRRAAHHHWWWAAAAAA!!!!
My gun provides me with safety…not your gun control laws Mitt!
Mitt, the Rockefeller panderer, of course some of you will say…well…well….he was a Gov of MASS…it will be different when he is President.
This is why Romney can’t close the deal with me. He has never led a Conservative fight in his state or nation.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
17, considering Perry’s past false attacks, I have no reason to believe any attacks that he puts forth.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
22, do you even know what the gun laws were in Massachusetts? Without that knowledge, you CANNOT make a judgment here. Some strong laws are necessary. THAT is one of the many reasons I support Gov Romney. He’s REASONABLE. He understands that extremes on either side are rarely the right answer.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
22
SHUT UP
We have HANDGUNS in Massachusetts! There is NO BAN on handguns, never was, and Romney never supported it!
October 28th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Ci2Eye,
You are correct. I’m guilty of flip flopping..and I admit it. Something Mitt can’t do.
After TPAW wnet out of the race I knew that Perry was a dope and should not be President. I always knew that Bachmann is a NUT JOB and that Cain was not up for the job.
As I watched this race from a distant I could not warm up to Mitt at all. He is a good man but not a political Conservative man. Mitt will not move Conservative mountains.
Newt is an imperfect man who has been unfaithful, and he has admit it.
But he is a Movement Conservative who deserves Smackdaddy to weigh in on his side.
The battle is now engaged.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
25#, MC
I believe you…on handguns. I think you misunderstood my comment.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Jeff,
“He’s REASONABLE’
Yep..
Yep….
Yep…….
He sure is.
At this point in time when our nation is getting crushed by out of control Liberalism we need a “Movement Conservative” not a reasonable Rockefeller.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
My neighbor owns a whole collection of rifles and shotguns, no problem.
I have a shotgun myself.
My neighbor’s cousin owns a collection of high-capacity fully-automatic assault rifles, including an AK-47, a Colt .45, a semiautomatic shotgun, and a turret-mounted M50.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:26 pm
“Some strong laws are necessary”
For the criminals, not for the law biding citizens.
No need to challenge the libs in MASS I see, will Romney challenge the Libs in Washington DC?
October 28th, 2011 at 9:27 pm
That was a nice ad. I have a good friend who had a baby a couple of years ago with Trisomy 18 (the same condition as Santorum’s daughter). My friend’s daughter lived just 30 days.
But while it was a touching story, it didn’t tell me anything about Santorum’s preparation for the hardest job in the world. I have nothing against the guy, but he has done nothing to persuade me to support him.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Mitt Romney in 2007,
“So I’m a hunter and believe in Second Amendment rights, but I also believe that assault weapons are not needed in the public population.”
The Associated Press reported in April 2007 that Romney never sought a hunting license in any of the four states where he has resided.
Is it real, or is it a Romney?
October 28th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
30
You have NO CLUE what you’re talking about. NONE.
ANYONE in Massachusetts may own ANY gun. The ONLY restriction is that you can’t own a machine gun unless you’re a police trainer or a collector. You can own 50-cal sniper rifles, revolvers, fully automatic assault rifles, semi-automatic handguns and shotguns, etc.
When Romney once said “we have tough gun laws in Massachusetts. I support them” – he was talking about the simple requirement that people take a gun safety course and pass a background check before buying a gun, and that you register the gun with your local police.
The state government here has no right to prevent any law-abiding citizen from owning a gun.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
During his 1994 senate campaign and 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign, Romney said he would have a better policy providing for domestic partnerships than his Democratic opponents. In 1994, Romney sent a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights in the Senate than his opponent at the time, Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
Is it real, or is it a Romney?
October 28th, 2011 at 9:37 pm
30 – If the Senate and House were an over 90 percent Democratic veto-proof supermajority, it might be similar circumstances. Fortunately they aren’t, and aren’t likely to ever be.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research in general terms, and he promised to lobby George W. Bush to embrace such research. During his presidential campaign, 2008, however, Romney renounced his 2002 position and said that he now agrees with Bush’s decision to ban federal funding for research on excess embryos.
Is it real, or is it a Romney?
October 28th, 2011 at 9:38 pm
#26 Smack,
Alright. Interesting. As you said, at least you admit it but I’ll tell you something (and I’ve said it before) that I always liked about you and that is that you were a steadfast cheerleader for Pawlenty. I don’t remember you knocking any other candidate, you just keep promoting your guy; over and over again and with great fervor, you told us why you supported Pawlenty. I always liked that and thought everyone else here needed to follow suit. As a Romney guy, I’m a bit disappointed that you’ve flipped to Newt (although I like Newt too) and decided to become like Sojourner who mostly just attacks.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
NO, when I supported TPAW I attacked Mitt then to.
I Smackdaddy at least believe Mitt can do the job, unlike the rest of them.
I just don’t know in which way he would do the job.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
36
No s—. When you believe life begins at conception, there’s no way you can justify creating embryos for destroying them. You’re double-counting here.
October 28th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
HERMAN CAIN with a showstopping series of shocking gaffes!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE5xZKszXMQ
October 28th, 2011 at 9:49 pm
40, BAHAHA! Beautiful. It’s about time they did Herman.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
32. Smack, Here’s Governor Romney’s record on guns in MA
Every year that Gov. Romney was in office he worked for and signed at least one pro-second amendment/pro-sportsmen bill into law. These actions were done in support of and in collaboration with the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), and its affiliate, the Gun Owner’s Action League (GOAL):
Massachusetts — Governor To Sign Inland Fish and Game Fund Bill
Governor Romney issued a proclamation declaring May 7, 2005 as “Right to Bear Arms Day”.
Governor Romney suspended “administrative fees” to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Fund.
Massachusetts — Firearms Reform Bill Sent to the Governor`s Desk
Massachusetts — S.2255 Signed by Governor Romney!
Massachusetts — Governor Signs Pro-Gun Legislation Into Law!
“The Hunter Education bill, S.469, was signed into law by Governor Mitt Romney on July 6, 2006.
During the Romney Administration, no anti-second amendment or anti-sportsmen legislation made its way to the Governor’s desk…
“His administration also worked with Gun Owners’ Action League and the Democratic leadership of the Massachusetts House and Senate to remove any anti-second amendment language from the Gang Violence bill passed in 2006.
GROVER NORQUIST from the board of directors of the NRA:
“Guns and Romney. Romney’s position on guns is flawless … I went and worked with the governor back when the D’s were planning on passing a restriction on 50 caliber rifles in Massachusetts. And he committed to me that he would oppose any restrictions… his position is fine.”
October 28th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
32. Smack, if Grover Norquist from the NRA has no problem with Mitt’s gun positions, why should you?
October 28th, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Massachusetts Conservative,
Romney is becoming a candidate alone on an island.
Let me give you some data that might give you the shivers.
According to the last PPP Iowa the front line nmbers went like this:
Cain 30%
Romney 22%
Gingrich 08%
As Cain falls in Iowa Gingrich will replace him.
Take a look at these FAV/UNFAVS among each candidates supporters.
Iowa: Gingrich
Bachmann supporters:
Gingrich 42/30
Cain supporters:
Gingrich 64/32
Huntsman Supporters:
Gingrich 47/53
Paul Supporters:
Gingrich 39/49
Perry Supporters:
Gingrich 44/26
Romney supporters:
Gingrich 51/40
Santorum supporters:
Gingrich 65/24
…now compare that to the following.
Iowa: Romney
Bachmann supporters:
Romney 22/65
Cain supporters:
Romney 43/47
Huntsman Supporters:
Romney 47/53
Paul Supporters:
Romney 27/57
Perry Supporters:
Romney 34/38
Gingrich supporters:
Romney 48/32
Santorum supporters:
Romney 43/52
Newth has better FAV/UNFAV numbers among all the other candidates supporters then Mitt in Iowa….except for Huntsman where they are tied.
Also Gingrich gets 26% among Cain supporters for 2nd choice while Romney only gets 13%. And Newt receives 30% of 2nd choice voters of Paul supporters and Romney gets 5% of them.
I look for a surprising good number for Newt in Iowa out of that DMR poll tomorrow.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
I too thought this ad was very nice. However, it did not give me a reason to want to vote for Santorum for president. Nor did it motivate me to check out his website. It did make me think that he would be another great leader for the prolife cause.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:17 pm
34. Smack, here’s Romney’s ACTUAL record on gay rights:
Governor Romney has maintained a consistent view regarding gay issues:
1.) Gays should be treated with respect and not be discriminated against,
2.) but traditional marriage must be preserved.
“Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Republican, is urging the adoption of a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.”
TIME – Popping The Question – Dec 1, 2003
when the constitutional amendment received preliminary approval from the legislature, Mr. Romney, a Republican, asked the state attorney general, Thomas F. Reilly, to ask the court to stay the May 17 start date. But Mr. Reilly, a Democrat … refused to represent Mr. Romney or appoint another lawyer to do so,
“Romney, however, has used his bully pulpit to call for a total ban on gay marriage. The legislature complied, but only on an amendment that also permitted civil unions. Romney wasn’t happy about this. He also had no alternative. ”If I have to choose between gay marriages and civil unions,” he says, ”I’ll choose civil unions every time.” ”
”I believe that the best and most reliable way to protect traditional marriage is through a federal marriage amendment, as opposed to letting activist judges make policy on a state-by-state basis,” he [Governor Romney] said in a statement.
When all legal efforts failed to prevent or delay same-sex marriages before the court imposed deadline, the governor found a legal means to prevent out of state same-sex couples from marrying in Massachusetts, stating:
”Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage. We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation.”
Governor Romney fought for a marriage amendment his whole term in office. Even in his last two months in office, he kept fighting the legislature to place “a marriage amendment on the 2008 state ballot.” This would allow the state’s constitution to be amended to prevent same-sex marriages. He went so far as to join with state citizens to sue the legislature since, “The constitution of Massachusetts gives citizens the right to petition — and lawmakers are obligated to vote on that petition. They are refusing to do so.” (More than 170,000 people had signed the petition.)
Governor Romney stated in a speech at the capitol: “I was struck by the irony and the hypocrisy. Legislators so energized to protect the newly discovered gay right to marry had no compunction about trammeling the long established, constitutional right of the people to vote.”
Also, one month after same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts, Governor Romney testified before the U.S. Congress of the importance of an amendment to protect traditional marriage.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, in his testimony on June 22, 2004, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated:
“Marriage is not an evolving paradigm, as the court said, but it is a fundamental and universal social institution that bears a real and substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of all the people of Massachusetts.
“We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, [and] blocks judges from changing that definition ….. at this point, the only way to reestablish the status quo ….. is to preserve the definition of marriage in the federal Constitution before courts redefine it out of existence.”
Also note that Republican Governor Schwarzenegger refused to support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn the CA ruling.
And, Connecticut Republican Governor Rell said that while she disagreed with the ruling she would not fight to reverse the CN decision.
Romney’s actions as governor were about as conservative as could be under the circumstances.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
34. Here’s a quote from National Review Magazine:
http://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller200512141539.asp
October 28th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
A man from Londonderry, N.H., asked if Romney was ‘willing to upset a lot of countries to take care of America first.’
“‘The answer is yes,’ said Romney. ‘And you may say, ‘Well, prove it.’ It’s hard to prove but I can tell you this: I don’t have a career in politics. This, for me, is not the next step in my political career to run for president. As you know, I was governor for four years and I point out that I didn’t inhale.’
..Uhhhh what?
Is it real, or is it a Romney?
October 28th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
Keith Price.
“Romney’s actions as governor were about as conservative as could be under the circumstances”
So Romney lied during his 1994 senate campaign and 2002 Massachusetts gubernatorial campaign when he said he would have a better policy providing for domestic partnerships than his Democratic opponents, and in 1994 when Mitt sent a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans saying that he would be a stronger advocate for gay rights in the Senate than his opponent at the time, Senator Edward M. Kennedy.
You can’t have it both ways.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
#3 Are you CRAZY Smack? All Santorum did in the last debate was attack like an angry ankle biting Chihuahua!
October 28th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
#49 Mitt has always been for benefits for Gays, but he has always been against redefining marriage. Gays are still people, they do need benefits ya know.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
36. Smack, Romney differentiates between two different kinds of Stem Cell Research.
More facts…
He vetoed the emergency contraception bill.
From the National Review (Feb 11, 2005)
“Romney has started out of the gates playing it straight. ”I am in favor of stem-cell research. I am not in favor of creating new human embryos through cloning,’
Romney fought the liberal legislature:
”We’re very disappointed that the Romney administration is not honoring the intent of the Legislature, who voted overwhelmingly to protect the health of rape victims,” said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts…”
Romney added an ammendment to the stem cell bill to prohibit cloning.
From National Review, May, 2005
Mitt Romney can probably hear his echo when he gathers those who are standing with him on this fight, but that’s not stopping him from trying.
Gov. Mitt Romney vetoed a bill Friday that would expand embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, but the measure has more than enough support in the Legislature to override the governor’s veto.
Governor Romney passed a medical plan that reduces the number of people who receive state funded abortions.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
#48 Why don’t you call up your God T-Paw and ask him why he doesn’t see it that way? Maybe give Chris Christie a call??
October 28th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
48. I don’t know what you’re asking, here.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
49. No, Romney did not lie. He does and did support gay rights. Just not marriage.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
#52 Smack is erratic. He’s a mess and all over the place, but the important thing is that he will be voting for Romney. Yeah, he may be politically whoring around at the moment, but alas he will repent and return after spending his inheritance, so to speak, and we will prepare a feast for him when he returns
October 28th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
#56 Keith, Smack is lost but will be found! Some individuals just can’t make the right decisions until they hit rock bottom. I thought he’d hit rock bottom after T-Paw dropped out….guess I was wrong
Craig For Losers on the other hand is the type that will continue to make bad judgment call after judgment call because he is a glutton for punishment. Alas, he will be voting for Romney as well
October 28th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
Wow, Keith. Thanks for all that info. I think I’ll bookmark this page.
October 29th, 2011 at 12:18 am
49. Smack, your comments are growing tiresome and convey what appears to be willful ignorance, or a desire to mislead others. In regards to Romney’s claim to the Log Cabin Republicans, what Romney was saying is that if he, as a Republican, were advocating for domestic partnership laws, it would have more impact than Kennedy, as a Democrat, taking more liberal positions–not that his views were to the left of Kennedy. As the gay movement evolved and began seeking for gay marriage, Romney fought hard for traditional marriage.
October 29th, 2011 at 1:08 am
Good work Keith. You can try and twist Romney’s record Spank, but trust me, we “rombots” have been defending Romney for almost 6 years from these empty attacks, and there is very little you can throw at us that we have not already heard. And if it is indeed true that Newt is your man, I don’t think you want to get in the ring with us on his record.
I will ruin him for you.
October 29th, 2011 at 1:46 am
Thanks, Mike and Andrew. I’m still learning all this stuff. But, I believe we’ve found in Mitt the answer to our country’s problems.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:31 am
YEA good story and everything, BUT VERY WRONG TO BRING UR FAMILY into a campaigne like this. hes using the sympathy vote and its not right.
October 29th, 2011 at 5:12 am
This is an incredibly moving ad that has greatly improved my outlook on Rick Santorum.
October 29th, 2011 at 7:10 am
1) Smack is a troll. He may have fooled us with him humour but he’s still one big fat troll.
2) Speaking of trolls, and JP characters, randomsmell is actually 100% correct that Ricky S’s ad is a nothing more than a pathetic attempt to use him family as a prop. I can’t believe most of you fell for it.
October 29th, 2011 at 7:51 am
A very moving story there that I didn’t know. It even warmed the cockles of this cynic’s heart. I think he was genuinely chocked up at the end there.
I have a sister in law who lost a 2 month old child to Trisomy 13.
October 29th, 2011 at 8:23 am
I think a clean attack on issues is a desirable trait in a candidate. Perry’s bigotry is low grade, and Santorum’s petty interrupting is bad form. Romney gets it right as far as I’m concerned. Real decent type.
October 29th, 2011 at 8:28 am
Oh yeah. I watched it now. It is a beautiful story, and just like Palin, one more reason Santorum should not be president. He has a more important calling right there. Stay home and be a fabulous father, Santorum. Re-submit your paperwork when the kids are all grown.
October 29th, 2011 at 9:07 am
I like Santorum a lot. None of the candidates have won my Huckaheart yet.
I just read an article by Gun Owners of America that goes along with some of the discussion on this thread. Mitt Romney and Gun Control
October 29th, 2011 at 9:49 am
George Will,
In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it?
hehehhhehehehheheeeeee
October 29th, 2011 at 9:54 am
The most important political piece written in the last 2 years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-the-pretzel-candidate/2011/10/28/gIQAPEQ8PM_story.html?hpid=z2
George Will,
Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?
October 29th, 2011 at 9:58 am
Keith, thanks for posting the facts.
After years of battling the people who intentionally post misinformation, or even bold face lies, I have grown weary of trying to educate them.
Thank you for picking up the batton at this important time and doing the dirty work…
October 29th, 2011 at 10:03 am
Smack
Looking at your posts, I feel like a found out a friend was really a frienemy.
I know you are sharper than this. You have the ability to promote Newts positives if you want to.
I don’t understand way you have choosen to attack Romney using false or twisted information you have gleened from unsavory sources.
It’s not becoming of you Smack.
I never figured you were even close to being on the same level as Baghdad Criag or Sojourn.
Seeing you post such garbage makes this a sad day indeed…
October 29th, 2011 at 10:13 am
George Will is not unsavory.
October 29th, 2011 at 10:20 am
#73..Smack
I’m being serious.
He’s not your only “source”.
And George Will is offering up his opinion as it stands at the moment. He’s gone through phases of praising Romney. Now he seems to be in a different phase.
But you can think for yourself if you want to…
October 29th, 2011 at 10:24 am
Anyway Smack, Newt is incredibly undisapplined, both politically and personally, but if you think he’s our best shot at beating Obama and cleaning up after him, then you would be doing us all a favor by showing WHY that is rather then just trying to smear Romney with half truths and out of context gotcha sound bits…
October 29th, 2011 at 10:27 am
By the way Smack, sadly, Pawlenty didn’t gain any traction, but he’s the only other candidate after Mitt that I thought would do a decent job as POTUS.
Just so you know.
And I’m very glad that both Pawlenty and Christie are backing Mitt…
October 29th, 2011 at 12:17 pm
Wait for it….wait for the……Santora- BOOOOOM!!!!
October 29th, 2011 at 1:41 pm
This is a shameless ad trying to use the unfortunate health situation of a child to gain sympathy votes. It won’t work. No one wants you as president Rick. It will be nice when you are no longer on the debate stage so we can actually give some time to the real contenders to elaborate on their positions instead of wasting it with questions to you, which you don’t even answer since you just attack others positions instead of laying out your own. Go away
October 29th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Well said A.