Replies

They just rehashed false, misleading, and out-of-context things from MassResistance.

Too bad, because if they were honest, there are things to be discussed in that record, but we can’t discuss the real issues because it’s easier just to lie about it and make it worse.

The “50 abortion” is where I lost Fred Thompson. Up until that point, I saw him as a man of character who would argue from a solid point of view.

But I know Thompson supports abortion for rape, incest, and to save a mother’s life. I also know he voted for the bill that made payments for abortions for poor people legal.

I know that Thompson would NOT keep poor women who were raped from getting the morning-after pill. In fact, I don’t remember him saying he opposed the morning-after pill for ANYBODY, much less for people who he thought should be allowed to have abortions.

And Thompson, who supports a woman’s right to a post-rape abortion, wouldn’t bar that from poor women by not allowing them to get coverage for that abortion in their health care plan.

But there he was, picking up the partisan hack sound-bite attack on “$50 abortions”, as if the co-pay from an insurance policy is a rational basis to discuss medical costs.

Sorry, I hate the idea that abortion is legal, and that therefore it is covered under medical plans. But it is, and to attack a man for a health plan that had to cover abortions that you think should be legal is simply politics rather than principle.

Did Romney overstate his conservative credentials as Governor — I think so. Was he a liberal? no. But we can’t have that discussion, because there’s only “all” or “nothing”. The man who in 1994 supported an AWB is considered no different than the man who is currently trying to ban handguns. That’s just stupid.

RoeGone at best will help elect McCain, who supports FEDERAL FUNDING of embryonic stem cell research. Now, I’m not for banning the research, but I’m against federal funding. Romney’s against federal funding. If the next president supports funding, we WILL BE FUNDING it.

So why is Roegone supporting a man who will move us BACKWARDS on life issues, and is LESS likely to make Roe “go away”, which is their stated purpose? Why are they spending their money ensuring that the LESSER candidate gets elected?

Because they are a front group for Huckabee, most likely, but in any case are NOT what they seem. If I had a million to spend, I’d run a presidential candidate and have him put abortions on the air as POLITICAL CAMPAIGN COMMERCIALS so they can’t be censored. I’d spend money putting 4-d ultrasound in every inner city, to convince women to not abort their kids.

Instead, they are spending it to derail a pro-life candidate in favor of a man who WILL allow MY TAX MONEY to be spent on killing embryos for research.

I just wish I could find Mitt Romney trustworthy. About the $50, I read that he wasn’t stating the truth and instead of taking orders from the courts, he gave up authority to a board onto which he appointed someone from Planned Parenthood.

I don’t see how someone can change on so many issues without being able to tell the moral story that has a ring of validity about it. He’s told the story about his change of heart on human life — but I read that the person he was in communication with has a different version.

About the whole set of changes, he seems to merely say, “The older I get the wiser Ronald Reagan becomes.” That just doesn’t provide a meaty enough explanation.