Posted on 08/20/2007 7:39:06 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
Okay. Romney changing his stance to Pro-Life was entirely political expediency. 100% a cynical political move. Fine.
If our choice in Presidential candidates is limited to those untainted by political expediency, then we are going to have small choice indeed. I'd sooner take my chances with a candidate who has been tested by the gale force left wing winds of MA than by candidates who have enjoyed balmy conservative climes and have simply had to go along with their constituency.
I think the “creator”, as you put it, would expect folks to respect human life enough and not make off the wall remarks to hide their own failings.
Has Romney apologized? No. Was it the first time he said something along those lines? No.
Your own words has reveals your disingenuous!
My experience with you is that you are hopless because you are void of civility!
Than you just might find the former Mayor of NYC even more to your liking.
Political expediency isn’t a virtue. Romney`s recent conversion to pro-life candidate status is the perfect example. Its a vice. An ugly vice.
It isn’t a poor choice of words, it is not truthful. Either he is ignorant and doesn’t know what the truth is or he said something not true in order to get elected. I don’t want a good man trashed.
I don’t know why he or you is doing this but it is unacceptable. Reagan cannot speak for himself so someone wants to rewrite history. I don’t know what is in your heart or Romneys but I can protest. I can defend Reagan. Because I want his reputation protected.
Why do something like this? You want him to be elected so bad that you are willing to do anything to have it happen? It is as if you are calling Ronald Reagan a liar.
It isn’t about grammar or my preferences or editing. It is about the truth and about things not true and slander. The truth is the truth, an untruth is not simply a poor choice of words. It goes to character. What kind of character would want to do something like this? I cannot understand a conservative doing something like this.
If this is being done for the purpose of getting Romney elected [and I’m not completely sure of that] then he does not deserve to be elected.
Guess who?
“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”
Also, even though the past record is checkered, there is no limit to the good that Romney can do in the future precisely because he does possess many Reaganesque qualities. Some of us have chosen to embrace this convert, Mitt Romney, who has been endorsed by good and decent people like David French, Jay Sekulow, Peter Flaherty and others. They trust him to do great things and so do we.
BTW Diamond -- there is no rich irony there --- we have much more than mere words now on which to judge --- Romney has established a pro-life record in Massachusetts. See posts #50 & #52
Because you are a supporter of another candidate campaigning on this thread rather than promoting your own candidate on another, you are inclined to assign nefarious motives to his word choice. I am not. I think it was an honest mistake.
Thinks have been said about JFK and he is not here to defend hisself as well as Nixion etc.
>>>>>Also, even though the past record is checkered, there is no limit to the good that Romney can do in the future precisely ...
Since I don't consider Romney a conservative, I find your rhetoric here to be way over the top. Bush has given conservatives a checkered policy record as POTUS. We only got about half up the conservative meter with Bush. A glass half full, at best. If Giuliani is at the extreme lower end of conservatism that places Romney somewhere between Bush and Giuliani. A weak Republican candidate, more a political centrist moderate, than a solid conservative.
I don't trust liberals and I don't put my faith in centrist moderates either.
OMG You’re shameless. LOL
No doubt by nefarious means. I'm sure the anti-Mitt gang will be along soon to tell us how he robbed old ladies at gunpoint, accepted bribes from the mafia, blah blah blah. I'm not very good at this stuff but trust me, they are FAR better. Your wish will be fulfilled!
At least they don’t have to hide Mitt in a golf cart only to emerge periodically for show. That’s a candidate with something to hide. As soon as he opens his mouth you know why.
Two centrist-moderate Republicans.
Don't forget, too, that Ronald Reagan said he had no opinion on abortion one way or another when he became governor. He was 56 years old. Hadn't really thought about it too much .
He would be called a RINO and blasted on FR today.
I've become convinced these people don't interact much with the outside world.
What are you talking about. Reagan is being attacked on FR on a daily basis.
Posters are comparing the liberal Rooty Giuliani to Reagan.
Other posters are comapring the centrist Mitt Romney to Reagan.
Both are insults to Reagan’s great conservative record as POTUS. Nuff said!
I have not campaigned for my choice on this thread.
I have not said a word about another candidate. You’ve got me mixed up with someone else.
The ONLY thing that I am concerned about here is what he said about Reagan.
I can accept that you think it was an honest mistake. But I cannot. He might have said it just because he listened to someone else say something. Should let President Reagan speak for himself [in his books] in his own words. Even if it was an innocent mistake it is hurtful to the character of President Reagan. It would be to me if someone said something like this about me.
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.