I'm a Duncan Hunter fan, but I can accept Romney's conversion ... most folks have some point of reason which awakened their heart and mind to the dehumanization of the alive unborn. His vocalizations on the abortion issue is not the best reason to reject his rino-ness.
it's a cumulative thing. I doubt any conversion he has after his lifelong of professing the opposite.
In MA (politicians need to be liberal)
Pro roe v wade
Anti-gun
Running for president: (need to be conservative to win GOP nomination)
Pro life*
Pro Gun*
All a little too conveeeenient.
(* Yeah, right)
Like you, I too am for Duncan Hunter and I am proud to say that our candidate has never had to flip flop on the issue of abortion, Congressman Hunter has been consistently opposed to the murder of unborn children, and 'what you see is what you get'.
If Mitt Romney is against abortion now, that's all well and good and good for him. I think the voters of Michigan would receive him well, remembering his famous Dad, and I'm sure he is capable of going on to become an excellent governor.
I shall defer to whatever issue you think IS the best reason to reject his RINO-ness.
His endorsement of full-fledged "gays in the military" and Kennedy's federal "sexual orientation" legislation and homosexual Scoutmasters tops the list for me, right up there with his promotion of abortion on demand.
The last message in the world we want to send to FUTURE presidential aspirants is this:
You can spend your entire political career attacking conservative values and giving aid and comfort to the opposition, but so long as when it's time to run for president, you claim you've ever so sincerely (and conveniently) seen the light, all us social conservatives will drink that Kool-Aid and go charging to the ramparts on your behalf.
Nada. And Mitt is the perfect object lesson.
The message instead is this:
If you expect our support four or eight or twelve years from now, you better be standing up for life and traditional family values and gun rights NOW.
I'm pulling for Hunter, too, but if he fails, I think Romney is the next in line.
It amazes me how much we've heard, too, on this abortion issue, and yet how little we've heard regarding fiscal policy. There's no more proven individual in that regard than Romney. Not even remotely close.
Not that abortion isn't a major issue. It's just somewhat baffling to me how much the fiscal side is being ignored.
It's the passion for being a pro-choice candidate in 2002 that bothers me. It's not like he dodged the quesiton or try to take a middle of the road approach (a more reasonable approach while running in Massachuesetts). He talked about how courageous his Mom was for taking a pro-choice stance. Is his mother no longer courageous?
I can understand if someone is 22, pro-choice, and change their mind later on once they realize their folly. However, he was 55 then. He had 30 years to think about Roe vs. Wade, thousands of stories, weeks in church, roe's own public conversion, etc. None of those events changed his mind, but something happened recently? Bull. He made his bed. Let him lie in it.
Go Duncan Hunter.
If it were the ONLY switch he ever did, even done in his mature years when it’s rather unlikely....I might believe him too. But he has made too many switches. He’s made a complete change of empty suit.
“Make all the promises you have to.”
“I’m a Duncan Hunter fan, but I can accept Romney’s conversion ... most folks have some point of reason which awakened their heart and mind to the dehumanization of the alive unborn. His vocalizations on the abortion issue is not the best reason to reject his rino-ness”
Wow. My estimation of your fair-mindedness just shot up quite a bit.