As for the state of MA electing him, do your research – he was a shoe-in, heck anyone was. The former governor (Weld) left office, the lt. governor took a 6 month leave of absence to have twins, came back and got caught being corrupt during her campaign – anyone, I mean anyone even Elmer Fudd would have won – it was the corrupt candidate or the good looking, sweet talking Mitt – no other choices were available..

Also, the majority of Massachusetts citizens aren’t prejudice, but governor Romney turned out to be, so when he attacks and pushes down others in order to pull himself up, or for further political gain ( like appeasing to national conservatives ) - it’s fair game to attack him for who he is and for what he believes.

As for the state of MA electing him, do your research – he was a shoe-in, heck anyone was. The former governor (Weld) left office, the lt. governor took a 6 month leave of absence to have twins, came back and got caught being corrupt during her campaign – anyone, I mean anyone even Elmer Fudd would have won – it was the corrupt candidate or the good looking, sweet talking Mitt – no other choices were available..

Also, the majority of Massachusetts citizens aren’t prejudice, but governor Romney turned out to be, so when he attacks and pushes down others in order to pull himself up, or for further political gain ( like appeasing to national conservatives ) - it’s fair game to attack him for who he is and for what he believes.

But apparently the people of Massachusetts were?

Making fun of something a group people believe is sacred is pretty low.

One would hope that you could be respectful of another’s beliefs, even if you don’t agree with them.

About taxes.

For those of us that lived in MA during the run up the to the Governorship, Romney rightly declined to sign the no tax pledge because they were looking at quite a shortfall (thanks to the Tax and spend mentality up there) and he didn’t see how he could overcome such a huge deficit with one hand tied behind his back (keep your options open. Hmm, common sense over ideology. Well isn’t that refreshing. I’ll take pragmatism over an Ideologue any day). But once he got in, he hit upon a sure fire way to balance the books without resorting to tax increases: shrink government. He didn’t fully realize how effective he would be. So paint it however you like, I call it conservative pragmatism. Taxes as a LAST resort, but only after you have stopped the spending spree (and unlike Huckabee, who used taxes are a FIRST resort to continue to feed the beast). In MA, the story was “Eliminate Government Bloat”. Anyone who says Washington isn’t ripe for the same diet is delusional. So Romney correctly signed the “No Tax” pledge. That’s just smart money (management).

So enough of that.

About the Gay Marriage issue:

It wasn’t a about Gay Marriage until after he was elected. It’s disingenuous to parse old statements and positions when the battle lines have so dramatically shifted. We don’t hide from the old facts, just realize they represent an old reality. An old world that sadly doesn’t exist anymore. And you have it backward, it is society’s moral decline that led his thoughts to a presidential bid (and politics in the first place), not the other way around. Why is it so difficult for you rampant and habitual cynics to believe anyone still has altruistic motives? Is that so completely foreign to you that you can’t see it when it stands before you? If so, we don’t want you or your ilk rising to positions of power because power can be used well or less well, depending on the character and inclination of the man or woman that wields it.

Again, nice try, but we still don’t believe Next…

I believe that Governor Romney had a post on this board and is under the title of “CNN, MCCAIN, ROMNEY, CONSERVATISM”, with post # 11. Please go there and read it. He seemed very optimistic about the future.

And how is this attacking? Someone earlier said he ran “right of center” in 2002, but if you look at that link you can see he ran pro-choice, pro-domestic partnership, pro minimum wage increase, and pro gun control. That is not right of center to me.

Here he is signing a “no new taxes” pledge last year, and the article specifically mentions him refusing to sign it during the 2002 campaign http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/articles/2007/01/05/romney_finds_no_new_taxes_promise_suits_him_after_all/

That is not attacking with opinions, its attacking with facts. And need I remember you which former candidate was the first to attack this campaign?

Try they gay card, he flipped on that as soon as he thought of running for the oval office.

want more? bring it on but this site filters things that they feel can hurt Mitt.. so, I dont know if they will publish all the facts I can throw at you..

PS
I’m a Mass boy who has followed Mitt since he arrived, so test me all you want..

Not to attack McCain - but the irony is that he’s flipped on several big issues:

He’s “seen the light” about immigration.

He was against the Bush tax cuts - now he wants to make them permanent.

We had the TV on yesterday, and we saw part of Obama’s speech - and he started talking about McCain and how he was originally against Bush’s tax cut - but then he changed, and now’s he’s in favor.

I half expected to hear Obama to say something like this “John McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts before he voted for them” (playing off the whole “voted before it, before I voted against it” from John Kerry).

Going on and attacking other candidates page is not nice. Isn’t it enough that your candidates are attacking Mitt? It’s perfectly satisfactory to express your opinions but do it in a way that is factually accurate and have sources to prove it.

I believe it was Ann Coulter who said that she had lunch with a friend of hers and that she asked him who he was voting for. The guy said McCain and Ann said “what?”. Then she said why doesn’t she vote for Romney - the guy said he was a flip flopper and that Ann said “tell me one thing besides abortion he has flipped on”. The guy couldn’t come up with an answer, just goes to show you how the MSM spreads half truths.

So, with those in mind, we have seen what he can do as the top guy in the company. Now, image him working for a thinking tank — what kind of changes can we expect to see, at least, at the state level. I mean, for example, he could start to work with some states closely on their healthcare issues, with others on their economic issues (Michigan, where he promised to work with), and yet, with others on some independent energy solutions. Mitt is a very capable man, and many of what he has promised in this campaign are still implementable. Sure, they won’t have the same impact as if he was the president, but still, this will go a long way toward his conservative credibilities, especially if he is consulting various governments from within a conservative thinking tank.

This is what I am hoping for!!! Go, Romney 2012, Go!

so that center would be somewhere around Ted Kennedy’s nose? He didn’t run “right” of anything, except for perhaps his 1994 failed campaign for senator.

in his 2002 campaign for governor:
-while he stated a personal disagreement with gay marriage, he opposed a constitutional amendment banning it and supported same sex domestic partner benefits
-he went against the NRA in 2002 by supporting the Clinton Federal Ban on Assault Rifles
-abortion- these are direct quotes from in 2002 campaign literature:
“As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government’s.” Romney promised to “preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose” and declared “I will not change any provisions in Massachusetts’ pro-choice laws”.
-he proposed indexing minimum wage to inflation (a great idea, btw, but not a conservative one)

Please, as a Mitt supporter, you also need to get your facts straight on Romney and don’t take MSM spin as gospel.

Q1. Is it possible that Huckabee could win the nomination?

Mathematically, I don’t think it’s possible now.

McCain has 724 delegates, Huckabee has 232. You need 1191 do win the nomination.

From my count, there are still 20 states left to award delegates. Their delegate total is 905.

McCain needs 467 delegates to clinch the nomination, Huckabee needs 959 - so mathematically, it’s not possible.

I’m starting to think that’s the reason why Mitt suspended his campaign, instead of withdrawing - technically, those delegates are still “his” - and cannot go to another candidate (meaning they couldn’t go over to Huckabee - giving him 532, and making it a mathematical possibility that he still could get enough delegates).

Q2. What’s the difference, if any, between ending your campaign and “suspending” a campaign?

From what I understand, by “suspending” his campaign, Mitt can still choose to get back into the campaign - and still has control of his delegates. If he were to withdraw from the campaign, I believe that it releases his delegates, so they could go to another candidate.

Q3. Who has control of where Mitt’s delegates are alloted?

My understanding is that because he has suspended his campaign - rather than ending it because of withdrawing - Mitt (or more accurately - his campaign) still retains control of his delegates.

This is just my opinion, but I would imagine that once McCain clinches the nomination, Mitt will officially end his campaign, and formally release his delegates.

Hope this helps!

I don’t know if Romney did this purposefully, but it is effective. He “took himself away” from the Conservatives — just when they were beginning to endorse him and recognize that he was ‘their man.’

“The first step in getting people to take immediate action is for them to perceive your product or service as being in demand or in limited supply. People want what is “hot” right now.

Psychologists have proven, people find more value in things they have a difficult time obtaining. If you’re told you can’t have something, you want it even more.”
http://www.fromtheheartsalestraining.com/persuasion-technique.html

Another brilliant move that Romney made in his CPAC speech is this:
John McCain has been using his real and perceived strength in the War on Terror (surge, etc.) to put Mitt down.

As for the War on Terror another brilliant thing that Mitt did at CPAC was sort of an aikido move:

“Aikido focuses not on punching or kicking opponents, but rather on using their own energy to gain control of them or to throw them away from you. It is not a static art, but places great emphasis on motion and the dynamics of movement.”

Mitt Romney, in one brilliant speech, took McCain’s major strength and used McCain’s energy on the subject to gain control of McCain and throw him away from himself.

When Mitt said that he was stepping aside for the greater good - the War on Terror — he trumped McCain.

Whether any of this was intentional or not, I don’t know.

But I would never underestimate Mitt Romney’s understanding of human nature and his ability to negotiate to achieve success.

This guy — our Mitt Romney - is a genius. But it is not his time right now.

His time is coming.

Stay tuned!

I hope Romney does not accept VP and go on to carry the mantle for conservatives. I’m not confident a Republican can win the WH this year, so why be on a losing ticket? Plus he will be stronger than ever in 2012, even though we really need him now don’t we?