For some reason that I can’t quite fathom, there are millions of Republican voters who just can’t stand Romney. Is it his flexible stance on abortion maybe?
No, it’s because he’s Mormon.
“For some reason that I can’t quite fathom, there are millions of Republican voters who just can’t stand Romney. Is it his flexible stance on abortion maybe?”
Flexible stand on abortion? That would definitely be following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan and GHWB. Seems to be a tradition.
For me, I’m just not convinced by his claims of a late life transformation on a lot of conservative issues such as abortion and gun rights. I’m not one of those who ‘can’t stand Romney’, but I would feel a little uneasy if he were on the ticket. This, in addition to already being uneasy with the prospect of president McCain.
I’d vote for them, but not too enthusiastically.
And guns... and socialized medical care... and taxes... and...
You get the idea. He'd be an "ideal" candidate for McCain who changes his stance almost as often as he changes his underwear and political alliances. He'd be horrible in terms of winning the election or in running a Country.
Less bad than Obama, but still even worse than the morons currently infesting Congress and the White House.
“Is it his flexible stance on abortion maybe?”
And many other issues. He has no core values, he will compromise any belief. He is the Republican John Edwards.
Right, a Mormon with five kids.
/s
It’s not flexible... are you being ignorant? 100% pro-life. He moved to our side years ago
Is it his flexible stance on abortion maybe?
That’s the thought. Evangelicals aren’t comfortable with his change on his abortion stance.
I would like Romney for VP because of his business background but, I’ll take ANYONE who they think will win this election.
Abortion, guns, homo rights, health care, you name it. Romney is without principles. Political expediency drives his shifting politics and always has. Romney is a phony conservative --- a fraud.
Speaking for myself, it's his flexible stance on intrusive use of government mandate in social and "free market" engineering (an oxymoron) of industries such as health care, energy, and manufacturing (global warming!). Republicans I vote for advocate and battle for going in the opposite direction of things like RomneyCare and "responsible" environmental cave-ins to power grabs of free market productivity.
Yes -- the opposite direction of using of government to force social acceptance of open homosexuals by prohibiting individuals' rights to discriminate against it in free choice. The opposite of using Federal government to legitimize aboriton instead of advocating that it return to the States where it belongs, and where it was before Roe V. Wade. His "flexible stance" on abortion is a result, not a cause.
Time to reboot your fathometer.
The same can be said about McCain, Thompson, Huckaby, Rudy, et al. The sad truth is not one of the Republicans who was running gained overwhelming support. There are a good many who do like Romney, he was my third choice. The question now is, would he be a good pick for VP. Personally, I think so. McCain is notoriously bad on economic issues, someone like Romney is very strong on that point. Given this I think he is an ideal choice.
I think the abortion litmus test on a VP candidate is foolish. Mostly because the president has very little power in doing anything about it, and the VP has no power in the issues at all. Any real changes in laws would first have to get through congress, and then past the almighty Supreme Cort.
We need to focus on big issues nationally, such as energy, immigration, and the economy. Social issues like abortion and the homosexual perversion of marriage, although important, are best dealt with on a local and state level where real changes can take place.