Skip to comments.Mitt's Evangelical Breakthrough
Posted on 08/26/2006 2:18:58 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
Things are looking up for Mitt Romney. Not only has the outgoing Massachusetts governor been getting reasonably favorable press from usually hostile places but, courtesy of George Allen's Macaca moment, his position in the 2008 Republican presidential field suddenly looks more secure -- the most viable candidate to the right of front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Romney appears to sense the opportunity . . . (READ ON at the link above)
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
"Evangelicals for Mitt" argue that Romney is the candidate that fits their three qualifications for the ideal POTUS: "a president who not only "shares our political and moral values and priorities" but "can win in 2008, and can govern effectively thereafter." "
It's not just about matching up on social/economic policy stances, nor is it just about winning, nor is it just about being an effective and persuasive leader. IT'S ALL THREE! They are ALL important . . . but no candidate has ever existed that is perfect in all three areas. There is no candidate in the GOP field currently who fits all three qualifications for the GOP base better than Romney.
I think he's a good man, but I want to warn all of you who are not from the conservative South. If he were to win the Republican nomination, massive amounts of fundamentalist Baptists and near-Baptists will sit out this election rather than vote for a Mormon. It won't be enough to lose the Solid South, but there could be key losses in border states in the Electoral College. Which, of course, would be a disaster.
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
(No more Olmert! No more Kadima! No more Oslo! )
Your right. I think the Baptists will be happier with Hillary than Mitt.
Except for, you know, MITT ROMNEY.
He has been, according to his own statements, consistently in favor of legal abortion since even before Roe vs Wade. He takes the Bill Clinton / Mario Cuomo "it's bad but should be legal" position.
Recently, as he thinks of running for prez, he's called himself "pro-life", but declined to say what he means by that.
He's such a little worm, to slimy and scared to take a position.
His cowardice over Gerald Amirault was pathetic.
I'm not paid anything. Maybe you should do the search . . . even just by clicking on my profile you can go to my blogsite. I'm a grassroots supporter all the way and that's clearly explained on my blogsite. What's your beef here? Your comments lack clarity.
I've corrected you before on your Romney slanders. Why do you persist? You are just wrong.
Yeah, pretty much my attitude.
The way I figure it Newt, Allen and Romney are the only choices at this time. Could change, but we're just dealing with the present right now.
I like Rudy. I like him on the WOT. I like his attitude to the media. I like he doesn't try to rip the skin off conservatives in a prolonged act of revenge because he was torpedoed in 2000....Am I off track? LOL
But he's a liberal. And I am NOT inclined to give the GOP the free signal to continue going left.
And I'm going to choose the best conservative available, or one that at least behaves more politically conservative then the others, even if I wish someone better existed.
Whether I vote for them in the general depends on who it is. But as far as the primaries are concerned I'll be damned if I let McCain get the nod. He has to be humiliated, sentenced for what he has done these last years. And the primary is the vehicle to enact one half of that vengence. The second attack is attempting to remove him should he seek another term as senator.
JohnnyZ has no clue . . . just outlandish claims.
Romney has been Governor of Mass for nearly 4 full years now. Of the abortion related issues that came to his desk how many of them did he make "pro-choice" decisions? ZERO!!! He vetoed the Embryonic Stem Cell and Cloning bill, vetoed the bill seeking to lower the age not requiring parental consent for an abortion, and vetoed a law increasing access to the morning after pill.
He had various pro-choice statements during elections in 1994 and said that even though he was "pro-life" that he would place a moratorium on abortion related issues while he governed uber-liberal Mass (which is and wants to stay pro-choice). This is an unfortunately reality that any MA politician must face. He made a campaign promise here and kept it.
However, I say, what's more important . . . 12 year old statements from his first political debate ever (against the bulldog Ted Kennedy) or an actual record of governing in a pro-life manner? I think the answer is clear to those willing to assess the situation properly.
To really get the full story on Romney's abortion history see http://www.redstate.com/story/2006/7/14/12544/1705
(written by a pro-life activist who is an Evangelical Christian and supporter of Romney)
No way am I voting for the socialist.
B.S. It's all documented.
Mitt has been consistently pro-abortion, right through his campaign for governor in 2002, then denied repeatedly that his position had changed, his advisor said he was "faking it", and he's STILL too scared to come out and announce his new position, whatever that is.
The list of Republicans the trolls hate keeps getting bigger and bigger.
You guys recognize we're in the middle of a global war, right?
His lips are swollen, and a bit brown.
All things considered. If conservatives were to rank the current crop of possible GOP candidates for 2008, I think Mitt Romney would get a higher ranking then Rudy Giuliani. That ain't saying much. Bad news is, right now at least its a weak field of candidates. Good news is, its early in the process.
"Socialist"? Give me a break! You reveal your ignorance with such an outlandish claim for arguably the most "Pro-business" candidate in the GOP field presently.
First off, healthcare is ALREADY MANDATORY for everyone. COBRA and EMTALA laws make that a nationwide mandate to hospitals/doctors (BTW, I'm a physician).
Fortunately, Romney was there heading this healthcare initiative to see that the mandate shifted to the individual in accordance with the idea of personal responsibility. Everyone should have health insurance and the government shouldn't pay for it.
The libertarian excuse that this is a bad law because it is a government mandate misses the boat completely. The person who is well off but decides not to get insurance puts all taxpayers and healthcare givers at risk because if he/she gets severely injured he/she will get multi-million dollar care despite being uninsured. Q: Who is going to pay for this? A: The government/us taxpayers. Not a very conservative OR liberatarian present reality.
The plan was endorsed and supported by the Conservative Think Tank "The Heritage Foundation". THat should tell you something.
Also, Romney vetoed the part mandating business pay a fee if they didn't provide insurance to Full-time employees.
I've written on this before (here and elsewhere). http://www.redstate.com/blogs/jjfuller72/2006/may/29/defending_romneycare_it_is_not_socialized_medicine
Check there for more details on how this is ANYTHING but a SOCIALIST plan.
It's not a perfect plan, but at least Romney helped make it as conservative as possible.
try researching before deciding. but hey, why open a closed mind?
Rudy will win.
Anti-abortion nutjobs are a few and far between population.
Even here, there are like maybe 12 people talking to themselves.
This is a Goldwater conservative position that I agree with.
I did do a search for "Romney" before I posted this. This article didn't come up. Where was this posted before? I've searched by title and keyword for both Romney and Mitt now . . . not seeing where it was posted.
I'd really appreciate you pointing it out to me and give me some hints on how to find these hard to find articles. I don't have the time to be on this site 24-7 to see what comes through on Romney. Any hints? (and please lay off the name calling . . . )
The more "True conservatives" like Allen implode, the better chances the Republicans have of having a candidate who can actually win in '08.
This the same Romney who when ahead of Kennedy by double digits in the early polling for the 94 senate race came out and said "I don't want the support of the extremist NRA or Christian Conservative types"
"He's such a little worm, to slimy and scared to take a position." - LOL, you have pretty much captured ROMNEY. I live in NE, so I am pretty familiar with this guy, he's really starting to flip-flop like you know who.
Because Tancredo is the only candidate that can defeat Hillary.
Didn't you get the memo?
got a source on that?
He pulled close to Kennedy in the race, but never ahead of him from what I understand.
I would be interested in the source of your quote about the NRA and Christian Conservatives. I don't know everything about Romney, but that one is a new one on me . . . maybe you just heard it?
Do you have any direct or indirect contact with Romney or his staff?
John Kerry has said that he believes that life starts at conception.
I've met/heard Romney at a couple events here in Iowa. He's impressive. I've also spoken with some of his PAC staff here. They invited me to be part of the Commonwealth PAC Iowa Advisory Board (with 49 other pro-ROmney Iowans--all of us, unpaid) because of my blog and the grassroots work I'm doing. I've never talked "strategy" with them or Romney however . . . I come up with that on my own and hope I'm not screwing things up for him/them.
Ypu wish? Hope you enjoy a Democrat victory, then.
Dear Jeff Fuller,
"Quote all the OLD stuff you want . . ."
JohnnyZ has quoted something from four years ago. That's OLD stuff??
To me, it seems that perhaps Gov. Romney will say what he thinks he needs to say to get elected. So, when running for governor of Massachussetts, he states that:
"I RESPECT and will protect a woman's right to choose. . . . Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."
But now that he wants the Republican nomination for the presidency, he is suddenly "pro-life."
I'm not persuaded.
Why would a Southern Baptist- be happier with Hillary, rather than Mitt? Please flesh out, your point of view. Thanks.
Still waiting to hear where this article has been posted before here on FR. I can't find if for the life of me. I'd like the link and to find out how I can avoid double-posting.
On Kerry . . . show me his "pro-life" voting record. Romney has a "pro-life" voting record. NARAL says Romney is "Anti-choice." Hard to argue with that.
Yeah. Because it's normal for Romney's positions to completely change over four years.
Lord only knows what Mitt will be supporting in 2010!!!! (It probably depends who he's pandering to at the time.)
The trolls around here don't argue, the emote.
I don't think you want to get into a history of Romney's cozy courtship of NARAL.
''He's very careful to say that he's not going to change the status quo . . . but in his questionnaire he filled out for us, he really went beyond the status quo," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. ''He made commitments on a range of issues."
Obviously Mitt isn't as much of an extremist as NARAL usually likes, and they're mad at him for waffling on his pro-abortion dedication since he decided he's not running for reelection and has a new audience to pander to, but they probably have some good blackmail tapes of Mitt kissing some serious NARAL butt.
Romney's running mate, Kerry Healey, buttressed that idea by saying, ''There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and Shannon O'Brien," who was an outspoken advocate for abortion rights.
It's all context. Show me the statement that Romney calls himself "pro-choice". I'll show you a kazillion dating back to the 90's where he's said he's "pro-life". All the quotes people bring up don't mention that nearly all of them are preceded by his personal stance of being "pro-life". It's just a reality of MA politics that NO POLITICIAN can run as a pro-life crusader. Romney shelved the issue for voters but had to make some "pro-choicy" statements to pacify the liberal public wary of a Mormon Republican wanting to be their governor. Romney is a pragmatist and shelving the abortion issue was a pragmatic approach. Otherwise, you'd have the Democrat as the MA GOV. who WAS RUNNING on a platform to EXPAND abortion rights. Romney was the pro-life choice among the two back in 2002.
Do you criticize Reagan and Bush 41 for being "converts" to being "pro-life politicians"? Some will never be convinced . . . but what matters most is that I believe Romney when he says he's "pro-life". I think he will convince the electorate as well.
Oh yeah. "Personally pro-life." Like other prominent pro-aborts, such as Cuomo, Kerry, Clinton. Basically it means that they won't have an abortion themselves. Empty rhetoric.
Republicans in blue states have to say a lot of things to get elected they would not say if running in a red state. I don't have to tell you that cities like San Francisco, Chicago, NYC and so forth are infested with hippies, racists, feminists, socialists, and other vermin that make it difficult for right-minded people to win.
If someone like Romney is willing to give us the judges we want, then the hype about him not being pure on social issues is irrelevant.
The circular firing-squad crap is something the DUmmies do. If you don't like Romney and think Tancredo or whoever who support is the best thing ever, then spend more time doing good instead of being a cancer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.