Clinton was “pro-life” when he was governor of Arkansas.
That changed to “pro-choice” when he ran for national office.
When a politician makes such a massive change to core-belief, I have to assume that they are either soulless or just plain lying to get into office.
If Christie suddenly becomes a supporter of 2nd Amendment, I won’t be able to trust him. Sorry, I’ve just seen too many convenient changes like that over the years.
Romney is another. Yet he could have redeemed himself, shown great integrity, and made himself a viable candidate if, during the recent debate over nationalizing health care, he had come out and used the example (HIS example) of socialized medicine in MA as a perfect example of why Obama’s socialization of medicine must be defeated. But he did not. Though he had no problem changing some other core issues.
I gave up on Romney long ago. MassCare finished him as a primary candidate anyway. It is well-known that it served as a pattern for the hated Obamacare.
Christie is another matter. He has actually shown some guts and gotten some things done in a state where no one even thought he could be elected.
I own guns and supporty gun ownership. It is just not at the top of my priority list right now. Fiscal matters are. Spending. Deficits. Debt. Taxes. JOBS!
The candidate who makes a credible case for handling those things will get the GOP nomination.
Pro-life, pro-gun, anti-homo marriage-—I agree with all of that and more. But a lot of good it will do us in a “Weimar” America, which is the direction Hussein has us headed in. Basically, I’m taking up the tea party banner the way the movement was originally conceived.