More flip-flop Mitt meltdown

by: Pam Spaulding

Sat Feb 17, 2007 at 15:00:00 PM EST

In 1992, Mitt, an independent, voted for former Senator Paul Tsongas in the Democratic presidential primary. He told this to George Stephanopoulos, in an interview that will air Sunday on "This Week," explaining that his vote was "tactical" -- as in a strategic move to help nominate a weak candidate to run against Bush I.

You can see what's coming...

The Boston Globe had its archives handy and pulled Mitt's explanation for his vote from 12 years ago, and Mitt's fundie brigade isn't going to like this answer. (ABC):

"Romney confirmed he voted for former U.S. Sen. Paul Tsongas in the state's 1992 Democratic presidential primary, saying he did so both because Tsongas was from Massachusetts and because he favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton," the Boston Globe's Scot Lehigh and Frank Phillips wrote on Feb. 3, 1994. "He added he had been sure the G.O.P. would renominate George Bush, for whom he voted in the fall election."

Romney's contention that his vote for Tsongas was a vote for the weakest opponent for Bush - a phenomenon that political scientists refer to as "raiding" - surprised Professor William Mayer of Northeastern University in Boston.

"That would have been a strange election to have done that in, in the sense that Paul Tsongas was obviously going to carry his home state" of Massachusetts, said Mayer. Tsongas won the Massachusetts primary with 66 percent of the vote.

Many of the Freepers aren't buying. See after the flip.

Actual Freeper Quotes?

Another fake conservative. How many times can we be fooled? I'm sick of choosing the best of the worst. I won't vote for anyone not named Paul, Tancredo, or Brownback. I was behind Newt, but he's swayed heavily towards the neocon side. I for one am sick of psuedo-communists/Trotskyists posing as conservatives, and we swallowing it because they happen to be running as Republicans. It's got to become about the ideology again, not the party.

Why did Pat invite a Mormon to speak at his school?????

Maybe God told Roberson that he wants Pretty Boy Flip Flop Romney to be president.

Good for Mitt, the more exposure, the better,, I'm technically too far right as usual but I like to see what options will be on the table in the upcoming debates and primaries which are sadly way too far off, imo.

Man the top three this time around. Talk about no choice! The problem this time is that no one even pretends to be Conservative. Our choices are a Democrat who claoms to be a Democrat, or a Democrat who claims to be Republican.

I do want NewT to get in, heck, I'd like to see Coulter too. If it can help to elevate the debate of the issues at hand, that is,, and not get caught up in all this personal destruction that even good folks get caught up in.. Got Mud? .. to sling.Who doesn't?

Check out the website called "Mitt TV". The clip called "I believe" is pretty incredible. Some might say even Reaganesque.

I'm looking forward to hearing more from Romney. At the moment, this forum is practically unreadable because of the flame wars and spam posts that seem to accompany a post about any particular candidate. FR is at its best when engaged in rational discussion. That is getting harder to find.

Perhaps because maybe because it's time for evangelicals to come to terms with the Christianity that the LDS people practice and accept it. Also, he may see the writing on the wall that Mitt is electable and he will need the evangelical support to beat Hillary if he makes it that far. It's not the first time that Pat has shown any support for Mitt. This segment on the 700 club was very favorable towards him.

http://tnformitt.blo...

I agree we have a pretty good field in terms of experience and gravitas. I wish there was a true conservative in the bunch who doesn't have personal baggage. The Democrats have Hillary, Obama, and Edwards who reminds me of the drum major at my high school. They also have Dennis the Menace, Bidden the plaigerer, and Dodd who I've read likes to accompany Ted Kennedy to bars. Richards always reminds me of a slob teacher I had in high school. He needs a major wardrobe makeover.

I meant Bill Richardson, not Richards, of course. Ann Richards is dead.

You're right about the tone of the discussion about candidates. I was practically murdered for suggesting that reporters may have some dirt on Guiliani that they're planning to reveal.

you're officially screwed. are you implying Guiliani or Romney or others aren't Republicans? is President Bush considered a Democrat since he's pro-amnesty and spending is out of control? the slight-of-hand here is taking GOP candidates who are 80-95% conservative and then saying that 5-20% delegates them to Democrat status. President Bush is, at best, 80-90% conservative. does that make him a Democrat?

I don't dislike Romney. I just don't trust him because he has flipped on 2 key issues: abortion and special rights for homosexuals.

Guiliani is also in my negative column on those issues, if that is any consolation for you.