He sure doesn't sound like a conservative to me!
Posted on 10/06/2007 12:23:22 PM PDT by Rick_Michael
If things stay this way through the primary season, we may be in a situation that we haven't seen in a long time - the republican nominee not being known until the convention. With both Guiliani and Thompson wheeling and dealing with the also-rans behind the scenes for delegates.
How this would effect the presidential race is hard to tell...
It might actually draw some much needed interest and suspense to the republican covention, especially if the democrat candidate is coronated early in the process. It may also make it difficult for the democrats to run against a candidate before the covention if they aren't sure who they will be running against.
On the negative side, it could make the republican party appear to be split and indecisive. There could also be fund raising problems with no clear nominee.
Beyond a few liberal states after spending millions of his own money, Romney is in 3rd-4th place.
There is a reason for that.
Or is there another Mitt running that I don’t know about?
And you can spin, ignore all the facts, and play the little number games with Hollywood Thompson all you want. Romney is still more conservative than Thompson, still more in-line with social conservatives, still more detailed in dealing with issues of defense, and has a far more superior grasp on economic issues.
I don’t buy into fluff populism. Show me the results, show me how it’s going to get done, and show me why it should be done. Otherwise I’m just not interested.
Nice video clips of a guy years ago. Perhaps you’d be interested in buying stock in a current US President with a 75% approval rating?
You believe women should be arrested for having an abortion?
“Why would conservatives support a man who opposes the FMA?”
Why would conservatives support Mitt Romney who, as governor of Massachusetts, did more to promote gay marriage than anyone in America by acquiescing in the Mass Supreme Court ruling rather than refusing to implement it. Without Romney’s actions in support of it (by ordering the Clerks of Court to issue gay marriage licenses, when he was not required to do so), there would be no gay marriage in Massachusetts today.
Now he has the temerity to say he is the only one who is pro-marriage because he supports a “pie in the sky” Amendment. His actions in large part caused the problem. Now he advances a “solution” with no chance of success and he is the hero of traditional conservatives?? It is funny, but sad at the same time, because he is tricking some ill informed people into believing him.
Family group: Mitt Romney chose ‘gay’ marriage (Leadership?)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1907376/posts
>>>You believe women should be arrested for having an abortion?<<<
Are you or are you not pro-life?
If a fetus is a living human-being, aborting that fetus is murder. Period.
If a fetus isn’t a living human-being, keep abortion legal. There’s nothing sacred about it if it isn’t human life.
I don’t see where the ambiguity is. If you’re really pro-life, you treat an abortion just like any other murder. If you’re not, keep abortion legal, as it’s not harming anyone, anyway. What’s the distinction between a woman who kills her child inside of her and a woman who waits until the day that child is born?
ok would somebody please explain how this fits in with the early primaries Guiliani’s camp was negotiating.
Were all those early manuvers now exposed a pointless?
I’m pro-life. I’m asking if you believe every woman who has had an abortion should be arrested. From your response I’m assuming you do.
>>>Why would conservatives support Mitt Romney who, as governor of Massachusetts, did more to promote gay marriage than anyone in America by acquiescing in the Mass Supreme Court ruling rather than refusing to implement it. Without Romney’s actions in support of it (by ordering the Clerks of Court to issue gay marriage licenses, when he was not required to do so), there would be no gay marriage in Massachusetts today.<<<
Let me ask you a very simple question: when that Iowa judge struck down Iowa’s DOMA act, why were gays allowed to marry? Was that the governor’s fault? And why and when did they stop ordering marriage certificates?
You need to study your Constitutional Law, I’m afraid, and stop reading Mass Resistance and listening to the likes of one particular poster on here. The answer is of course that there is nothing the Iowa governor could have done to stop the Iowa court ruling. The Iowa DOMA was the only thing standing between gays marrying in Iowa. The judge struck down the DOMA act because it “violated” the state’s equal protection and due-process clauses and declared that it was a Constitutional violation to deny gays the right to marry. Thus, had the governor of Iowa or Mitt Romney attempted to circumvent the judge’s ruling, they would have been held in violation of the State Constitution—the one document they vowed to execute upon taking office. And who is in charge of interpreting law and the Constitution? Under Marbury v. Madison and hundreds of years of English Common Law, the Courts.
I’ll also note that the only things that stopped the judges’ rulings in those two instance were 1) a judicial stay put in place for the state legislature to amend the situation in Mass or a higher court to hear the case in Iowa and 2) a Constitutional amendment defining marriage to supercede the judge’s opinion of what violated equal protections/due-process.
Romney had two option in Mass. One was to argue that the state did indeed have a vested interest in maintaining marriage between one man and one woman—probably not an argument that the liberal court in Mass would give much credence. Or he could do what he tried to do and put the issue of marriage up for a vote for the people by ballot. Romney went so far as to file suit against the Mass Legislature for refusing to bring the issue of a Constitutional ballot initiative before the people in a vote. He won that case. At that point, the first vote passed the Mass Legislature and the second one failed, so the peole of Mass never got to vote on the issue.
And I’ll tell you what I told another poster: if you think the state of Mass is unlawfully issuing marriage certificates to gay couples without the legal authority to do such, sue them. I hear these same contrite arguments over and over again, and they all show a general failure to comprehend how our government works. If the state of Mass was acting without the legal authority to do such, don’t you think someone would have launched a lawsuit by now?
What these windbags harping on Romney for “choosing” gay marriage are interested in is attacking Romney and little more. They’re certainly not interested in dealing with legal realities.
>>>I’m pro-life. I’m asking if you believe every woman who has had an abortion should be arrested. From your response I’m assuming you do.<<<
I do. And I honestly don’t see how you can be ethically or legally consistent in having it any other way if you think through it.
The only exceptions our laws allow for murder include accidental death and murder in self-defense. All others forms are considered criminal. Accidental death implies no fault or criminal intent. Murder in self-defense deals with one’s rights to protect one’s self in the face of iminent danger. Abortion is an act of pre-medidated murder. The only exception I could find for abortion would be in the endangerment of the mother’s life, at which point one could argue the woman was acting in self-defense.
If one views a fetus as a human life, it is entitled to the full rights and protections of the US Constitution and US laws. A murderer is not sentenced to a lesser crime because he murders an 89-year old man as opposed to a 27-year old woman. All that matters is the murderer’s degree of criminal intent. Perhaps a varying sentence, but not a lesser crime.
Perhaps you think otherwise. Feel free to chime in. I’m not being combative when I’m laying this out.
*And I forgot about the defense of insanity, which negates the element of criminal intent and culpability in the case of murder.
This doesn’t affect my argument—it’s just worth noting.
Thanks for posting that! It is an absolutely devastating recap of Romney’s solid liberal credentials.
Because they trust someone who has held consistent views throughout his career. Fred voted 100% pro-life as a senator.
Bill
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.