Posted on 02/03/2008 11:51:22 PM PST by Kurt Evans
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Fraudo Flips on Gay Rights Flip. Again
While stumping in New Hampshire recently Willard Mitt reportedly extolled the virtues of gay couples raising children by saying that “(t)here are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice.” (source: Boston Herald, June 10, 2007)
Zounds. Willard Mitt, in New Hampshire, said that gay couples raising kids is the American way.
This after Willard Mitt, in South Carolina, said that while same-sex couples “are actually having children born to them (i)t’s not right on paper. It’s not right in fact.” (source: Boston Globe, February 18, 2006)
This after Willard Mitt, in Boston, signaled support forgay pride.
Of course while in New Hampshire Romney never said that gay couples raising children was “right.” He only said that it was “the American way.”
So is Willard Mitt really saying that he supports gay couples raising children? Or that he is against the American way?
Only his weatherman knows for sure.
http://romneyisafraud.blogspot.com/
On May 3rd, the GOP candidates for President debated in Southern California. One of the candidates, Mitt Romney, has this to say when asked about his views on abortion.
“Well, I’ve always been personally pro-life.”
While this may sound fine and good, it is a stark contrast to some of the things Romney said years ago when running for governor of Massachusetts. While courting votes, Romney stated, “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.”
What is now presented is an even bigger problem for Romney. Let’s assume for a minute that Mitt Romney is telling the truth and that he has, “always been personally pro-life.” This means that while he was pro-life, he promoted ideas and legislation that effectively strenghtened the abortion culture in Massachusetts.
So one of two things is true.
Either Mitt Romney is a dishonest politiciain who is lying about always being pro-life.
Or Mitt Romney has always been pro-life but has continued to run as a pro-abortion candidate and abandoned his principles in order to get elected.
Which is worse?
This entry was posted on May 6, 2007 at 1:18 pm and is filed under Abortion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
http://conservativesagainstromney.com/
1. Romney said that he does not favor a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion, but instead favors each state deciding for itself whether to allow abortion or not. (Suppose Lincoln had taken that approach on the slavery issue. )
Romney's position is that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned and that the people of the states should decide.
It's also the Constitutional position.
It's also Mike Huckabee's position or at least it is one of flip-flopping Mike Huckabee's positions.
So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states,
Mass Resistance is full of it. so is Mike Huckabee.
Pro Amnesty, Gang-of-Fourteen John McCain makes you all tingly, doesn't he.
As a pro-life person, I know that you cannot truly be personally “pro-life” but support a woman’s right to choose.
However, I understand what Romney is saying, and I’ve known many people who took that position, some of whom are the most easy to flip to the pro-life position.
A lot of men especially are “pro-life”. They can’t imagine killing babies, they wouldn’t ask, they wouldn’t support it.
BUT, they do not really adopt that position because of a solid basis of understanding of the personhood of the fetus. It’s just a feeling most humans have, ingrained in us.
Meanwhile, they are told daily that women should control their own bodies, and for the most part that is a rational position. And since they don’t get the whole personhood thing, they are often content to say “I don’t support abortion, but it’s not my place to tell women what to do.”
In other words, the same words one might use about smoking, or drinking, or driving too fast.
It’s often only when confronted with the actual choice, and having to work through WHY they oppose abortion “personally”, that they come to the conclusion that abortion must be opposed corporately as well.
I’m not making excuses, it’s a lazy person who doesn’t take the time to think through the rational for being pro-life. But as I said, I both understand what he means by it, and why it made him a prime candidate to be flipped to the light side.
The supposed pastor, Mike Huckabee loves McCain.
When President George Bush was working hard to nominate conservative judges, John McCain and his gang-of-fourteen were working hard to sabotage that effort.
John McCain likes moderates, liberals and their baby aborting ilk picking SC judges.
And apparently Mike Huckabee likes John McCain.
Sell that in Disneyland, You either have had compassion for life or you did not.
His wife donating time and money to Planned Parent Hood, and
his views lock stepped in the same.
To conviently switch will deciding to run for President, does not give me am inclination to buy into the sudde change.
McCain 2008.
No thanks.
When President George Bush was working hard to nominate conservative judges, John McCain and his gang-of-fourteen were working hard to sabotage that effort.
John McCain likes moderates, liberals and their baby aborting ilk picking SC judges. I don't.
No McCain 2008, or ever.
And of Romney will appoint conservative Judges guaranteed, and pigs fly and Pro LIfe will remain his stance.
Give me a break.
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.