Posted on 05/17/2007 9:53:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I think a man`s character and judgement are what we are electing but their views on issues can change. I don`t think exactly like I did always in the past. My mind is moving concerning regulation of firearms. (Please, no more on that tonight) My experience is that any man that never changes is still a kid.
Any man that comes from a political family, and has been directly involved in national politics his whole life, and is making the kind of “convenient” changes that Mitt Romney is making to run for President, can’t be trusted.
I know literally thousands of solid conservatives across the land who haven’t budged an iota on their core beliefs in decades. Your argument just doesn’t wash.
I heard that Michael Savage predicted that exact thing today.
First time I've agreed with MS in ages.
Go Mitt!
I think you’re probably right. He was my governor for four years and I can’t really tell you what he stands for.
Michael Savage said that???
I never saw that one coming. BTW, I love your tagline. I’m starting to believe it as a real possibility.
It would be 16 great years...
I love this guy!
http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=32992
The other guys are just talking heads to me. Mitt feels real.
Thanks CheyennePress. Appreciate it.
Mitt vs Hillary......Mitt wins. Write that down."
Exactly right! And he has the youthful appearance and vigor, as well as substance, to beat Obama as well.
It's contagious! Our ping list is growing. Click here to let Unmarked Package know if you'd like to join the ping list.
Worse than slavery-more like supporters of the Holocaust. Millions of the most innocent, and helpless killed and thrown away. No life liberty and pursuit of happiness for these children. It is evil incarnate.
I understand the plausibility of a position shift on things. There seems to be a disconnect between the below stance:
“Governor Romney: “I understand that my views on laws governing abortion set me in the minority in our Commonwealth. I am prolife. I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother. I wish the people of America agreed, and that the laws of our nation could reflect that view. But while the nation remains so divided over abortion, I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.”
(”Why I vetoed contraception bill”, Boston Globe Op-Ed, July 26, 2005)”
...and his new postion, brought on due to the embryonic stem cell research (early ‘07)
I’m not seeing where he’s addressing “in the case of incest, rape or when the mother’s life is at risk”. Is he on record anywhere since the ‘05 quote above including those instances along with his completely pro-life view?
If I missed it sorry, I was reading quickly. Thanks for taking the time to answer.
>>>The God-given rights to life and liberty are inalienable, and therefore can’t be alienated by any government or person, short of a conviction on a capital offense. Those who consider abortion to be a states’ rights issue fail to understand this cornerstone principle of American freedom. <<<
You may find this surprising, but I agree with you. And it’s a very good post on your part. Passionate and articulate.
Practical? Maybe.... I’ve come to the conclusion that our nation is too divided on this issue for this issue to be decided politically. It’s going to take some conversions and changing of hearts, and it’s going to take a judiciary that recognizes Roe v. Wade as bad law.
In a way, I’m like Romney in that respect. I’m strongly pro-life (more-so than he), but I don’t see this issue going away and it’s difficult politically. It’s one that’s going to have to be slowly chipped away at until it’s judicially excavated (see partial-birth abortion).
Do you think we can come to the point that we as a nation will support a Supreme Court decision declaring that the right to life extends to the fetus? I hope so. But in a nation that’s diversifying like ours is...
In any case, Romney did veto measures that were not pro-life in his years as governor. And having seen him speak on a number of other issues, I buy his conversion.
I was once Pro-Choice and a Democrat, as well. And then I grew up, came to faith, and came to appreciate life for what it is.
In the Republican debates Mitt has simply stood out as more energetic, better looking, better spoken, and much more exciting than anyone else on stage.
Anyone the Democrats put up one-on-one in a debate with Mitt is going to look pretty lame. I discovered him a couple of months ago and the more you learn about him, the more you like him. His detractors lie and distort his record. He also has the proven ability to pull support from across the aisle.
He has the right stuff!
Stop it. He has changed his position on abortion, is running on a conservative pro-life platform, whether or not one believes his sincerity, and has promised to appoint JUSTICES likely to overturn Roe vs. Wade.
The ASB was already on the books in Mass when he took office. He got a lot accompolished in the state. He didn’t have enough leverage with a 85% adverse congress to fight it and win.
It is called politics ET.
“Summary of Five-Point Plan To Confront The Iran Threat
First, We Should Tighten Economic Sanctions. The Administration deserves recognition for restricting access to banking and credit services. Other nations must act now to follow our lead. In addition, Governor Romney has called for strategic divestment from companies that support the Iranian regime’s dangerous actions. As the world’s financial center, no state could have a bigger impact than New York. After a new state Comptroller was named for New York, Governor Romney wrote the Comptroller, Governor Spitzer and Senators Schumer and Clinton urging them to join in the effort to stop New York pension funds from aiding Iran’s efforts.
Second, We Should Isolate Iran Diplomatically. Their leaders should be made to feel like those of Apartheid South Africa. Until there are indications that high level engagement would do anything other than reward bad behavior, the United States should not engage Iran in direct, bilateral negotiations over their nuclear weapons program. Finally, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad should be indicted under the terms of the Genocide Convention for incitement to genocide.
Third, Arab States Must Join This Effort To Prevent A Nuclear Iran. These states should support Iraq’s government; turn down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict; stop the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hezbollah; and tell the Palestinians to drop their terror campaign and recognize Israel’s right to exist.
Fourth, We Must Make It Clear To The Iranian People That While Nuclear Capabilities May Be A Source Of Pride, It Can Also Be A Source Of Peril. If nuclear material from their nation falls into the hands of terrorists and is used, it would provoke a devastating response from the civilized world. The military option remains on the table.
Fifth, Our Strategy Must Be Integrated Into A Broader Approach To The Muslim World. We must work with moderate Muslim communities and leaders to build a lasting Partnership for Prosperity and Progress. “
redgirlinbluestate...do you know if that’s current for Mitt?
Check Unmarked Package's homepage for Mitt's position on Iran, Iraq and the WOT.
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.