Posted on 02/02/2010 11:40:49 AM PST by yongin
-PJ
He didn’t “defy his church.” There is no evidence that he ever had anything to do with abortion in his personal life, and there is evidence that he counseled against it in his ecclesiastical life.
Some Mormons have the libertarian view about abortion — kind of like the Mormon view of smoking. While we do not smoke, we generally do not favor laws prohibiting smoking because we favor freedom. Some take the same position with respect to abortion, and the church has never said they could not. That’s the position Romney took in his Mass. political races.
Pack for a long trip.
I’d give Romney equal amounts of credit for the Brown victory ... and the Obama victory. [none]
Now THERE'S a mental image I'll have trouble ridding myself of!!
He defied his own church's teachings. You can spin it all you want, but it's pretty pathetic that Mitt didn't adhere to his church's pro-life dogma in making his political calculations. I guess power trumps principles, eh?
Sounds logical to me!
Again, you are the one spinning. The church would only take a position if he, himself, has caused someone to have an abortion, or if he, as a church leader, was promoting abortion, which he never did.
If he had been “defying his church,” he would not have held the relatively high ecclesiastical positions he held through that period.
Ah, so as a political candidate, he can support Planned Parenthood and be pro-choice, but that doesn't defy his own church's teachings?
Are you sure you really want to present such nonsense in your defense of Romney? Or are you just skilled in splitting hairs?
Post of the day, ROTFL!
For my part, I'm perfectly fine with Mitt sitting back and playing kingmaker as long as it keeps him out of the nomination himself.
I just don't think he has the intelligence to understand that he has been rejected for the job of POTUS...he needs to ask McCain how much fun it is to actually get the nomination after losing out to a better candidate only to lose to the worst possible POTUS in the nation's history. That's a second-place finish for the history books.
Romney’s top operatives were at the core of the Brown campaign.
And, considering the fact that Brown is a pro-abortion socialist, this is one more bit of proof, as if we needed any, that Romney was lying in 2008 about his “conversion” to conservatism.
It was and remains nothing but a cynical scam.
Wow.
Just...
Wow...
The people of Massachusetts would have liked to know that
in advance. Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow.
Not sure exactly whom you count as a "Romneybot". Am I in that group because I don't have a visceral, blinding hatred for the man?
As for me, Mitt Romney is off my list of favored candidates. In some critical areas, he's just not on the conservative side of things.
But at the same time, I can think of others who are at least as bad. For example, I don't think he's any worse than John McCain, though they each have their strong and weak points.
I don't loathe Romney, and I don't think he deserves the level of spite, ridicule and anger which seems to arise every time his name is mentioned on FR. I think there are persistent, annoying exaggerations, smears and half-truths about him which are regularly presented as The Gospel (complete with Boston Glob articles), and that makes me sad for FR's sake.
Does that make me a "Romneybot"?
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against Mitt ........
In fairness to lady lawyer, I did not intepret her post that way at all.
You are awaiting proof that someone didn’t do something?
What would constitute such proof? The name of the person who DID do it? You’d think so, but we already know that name isn’t Romney — the charge is that the person who did it was part of an organization that was secretly run by Romney and doing his bidding.
And I would “prove” that false how? How would I prove that an alien from outer space didn’t appear to Barack Obama last week?
I have long ago explained why the references provided do not prove the claim. That doesn’t “disprove” the claim, of course, because the absense of evidence is not the evidence of absense.
So what I should have said is “That would be claiming credit for something that there is no evidence he did”.
At least I’m consistant — I don’t blame Sarah Palin for stupid things people around her do either. I only blame her for things she does herself.
Whether or not Mitt Romney was "defying his church's teachings" is none of your business, nor anyone else's except Mitt and the Church.
It's exasperating that so many will presume to declare or judge what the LDS Church's position is on this or that, or how LDS leaders are supposed to behave, just to have another stick with which to beat on Mitt Romney.
If you aren't in a position of leadership responsible for Mitt Romney within the LDS Church, then the whole subject is outside of both your understanding and your concern.
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.