Posted on 06/14/2007 9:10:31 PM PDT by asparagus
Thanks for killing so many HTML trees. The topic is about Mitt Romney’s pro-life conversion. Let’s stay on topic.
JohnnyZ,
How many judges did Mitt appoint to the Massachussetts Supreme Court?
Answer is none.
How many to the district level?
Two, both staunch conservatives.
How many to traffic, court, city level, juvenille?
23. Most of the Democrats were appointed there, but they would have zero affect on state law or social policy. Plus, the nomination process went through the Governor’s council full of Dems.
Your attack is made up of whole cloth of air!
Not worried at all. I’m saying that Thompson isn’t all that his supporters are imagining him to be . He is the beltway’s next choice after McPain’s self inflicted implosion. The Establishment will move over to Thompson after McPain fades .
Rudy and Romney are truly outside of the beltway , like them or not . Right now we are seeing what happens when the beltway wants something ...immigration . Thompson is better than McPain , but he is still beltway like it or not .
Beth Meyers supports Mitt’s account. The Researcher only disputes the word ‘Killing embryos’. The Research says he said ‘Destroy embryos’.
Thanks for another misleading attack.
That was dispensed with long ago. His "conversion" was utterly contrived. You have to be completely naive or lying to say otherwise.
Let me ask you a question I've asked a number of times to Romney supporters, one that they have not once answered:
Don't you think a candidate's current rhetoric should bear at least some passing resemblence to their actual record?
There is some nice gems in your material which undercut your thrust of your deception. Here it says Mitt opposes Gay Marriage. Personally, I too could live with Civil unions, if it stopped Gay Marriage.
“Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney campaign spokesman, said Romney opposes gay marriage but also opposes the amendment, since he sees no reason to change the current laws, which allow for domestic-partner benefits to public employees.… ‘Mitt did not know they signed it, and Mitt does not support it,’ he said. ‘As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it’s unnecessary.’ “
None of us are under the illusions that Fred is a candidate for Sainthood. But we certainly know which candidate can claim a legitimate Conservative and reformist record and which cannot.
Rudy and Precious may be “outside the beltway”, but their positions are far closer to the Establishment’s than Fred’s are (assuming you can ascertain where Precious stands on any particular day of the week — at least Rudy isn’t so politically schizophrenic, he’s just simply wrong).
Harvard researchers can't be trusted. They use the scientific method, which flip-floppery. They support one position, then change their position based on "evidence".
Son, you're shooting your own candidate in the foot something fierce.
The Romney administration told the justices of the peace that if they refused to perform gay marriages, they would be fired, even though there was no law or constitutional provision on the books that allowed him to do so. To this day, no such law or provision exists.
This fact outweighs all of Mitt’s lying and spin like an M-1 tank outweighs a feather.
I'm tired of the hypocrisy among FRedhead social conservatives who attack Romney for his abortion stances. He has a big family, and one superbly well-maintained marriage. If you include Gingrich among the top five most visible Republican candidates, the remaining four have 10 marriages among them. The Democrats? As anathema as their are agenda is, they have zero divorces.
FRedhead social conservatives should be ashamed. But they're not. They're attacking Mitt Romney, the only Republican candidate among the top five whose personal life truly is a model of social conservatism and moral rectitude.
CFR , you support that ? There is only one candidate that supports repeal of CFR .......it’s not Thompson
Disgusting.
The interpretation of the Justices was that additional law spelling it out constituted discrimination. Basically, they said that the intent of John Adams was that same sex couples were constitutionally allowed to marry. According to the Justices, the legislature could create a law on the matter, but it, according the Justices was inconsequental. The right to marry had to be granted on a certain date. Mitt fought that ruling until that date occurred. And he fought that action until the last day of his Governorship.
Mitt took an oath to honor the constitution. When the Supremes invoked their ruling as a core concept with the Mass. constitution, Mitt could not go contrary to that.
Furthermore, when counseling women from his church, he counseled them against abortion even on one occasion when the health of the mother was at risk.
He had five children and his children's children now nmber ten. He successfully passed along his belief in children to his children. I know many large families and NOT one is pro-choice.
I would much prefer that Mitt had been publicly pro-life all along. I am uncomfortable with some of the pro-choice statements he made while campaigning and as governor. However, when examining his record in Mass, he made the abortion laws less liberal as he did with a number of the Liberal laws in Mass regarding other issues. Not bad for a man who was working with a legislature that is 15% Republican, in a state whose voters are 30% Republican. With more normal and favorable proportions in the House and Senate in DC, he will fare far better. And unlike Thompson, he is not a Washington insider and has no ties to Hollywood.
Yes, how can Reagan live with himself?
How can Lincoln live with himself supporting slavery even after he was elected?
Those men are disgusting.
/sarcasm off
It’s my understanding, Thompson is a member of the council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Oh, the humanity ! A single man dating ! Stop the presses ! Stop the presses !
I don’t give a damn about how allegedly wonderful the Romney marriage is, because it doesn’t change the fact that he is a liar, a hypocrite, and has flip-flopped to suit the occasion on social issues. Fred never flip-flopped or wavered on thos issues while in public office, and that IS the point. You get me, boy ? Or do you need me to draw you a diagram ?
Thompson already acknowledged it hasn’t worked. I didn’t agree with the final bill, but I at least knew what the intent was. BTW, what does CFR have to do with Romney’s flip-flopping on abortion ?
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.