Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

National Right to Life, others endorse Romney (Dear Lord)
Baptist Press/Town Hall ^ | 4-12-12 | Michael Foust

Posted on 04/12/2012 9:01:29 PM PDT by STARWISE

National Right to Life and two other major pro-family groups have endorsed Mitt Romney for president, saying that on the issues of abortion and marriage, he stands with them.

National Right to Life's endorsement Thursday (April 12) came two days after Romney's leading challenger for the Republican nomination -- Rick Santorum -- dropped out, making Romney the presumptive nominee. Also endorsing Romney were the Susan B. Anthony List, a group that supports pro-life women for political office, and the National Organization for Marriage, which has led the charge nationwide in protecting the traditional definition of marriage.

In its endorsement, National Right to Life said Romney "has taken a strong pro-life position and is committed to implementing policies to protect the unborn." The organization said Romney:

-- opposes Roe v. Wade, having called the 1973 decision a "big mistake."

-- supports the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.

-- backs the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funds for organizations that perform or promote abortions in foreign countries.

"On pro-life issues, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama provide a stark contrast," said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. "As the country's most pro-abortion president, Barack Obama has pursued a radical pro-abortion agenda. It is now time for pro-life Americans to unite behind Mitt Romney. For the sake of unborn children, the disabled, and the elderly, we must win."

The Susan B. Anthony List made similar points and added that Romney has pledged to "appoint only constitutionalist judges to the federal bench" and also to defund Planned Parenthood.

"Women deserve a president who truly respects our views on an issue so central to womanhood," said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. "A President Romney will be that man. If there was murkiness during the last election over Barack Obama's extreme abortion position, absolute clarity exists now -- and his abortion position is rejected by women young and old."

The National Organization for Marriage, which played key roles in preventing gay "marriage" from being legalized in California and Maine, said Romney was an early signer of the organization's pledge, which meant he was committing to:

-- support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

-- appoint Supreme Court justices and an attorney general "who will apply the original meaning of the Constitution."

-- "vigorously" defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act in court.

-- establish a presidential commission on religious liberty.

-- advance legislation to allow District of Columbia citizens to vote on the definition of marriage. Gay "marriage" currently is legal in D.C.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, said the group was "proud" to endorse Romney.

"President Obama," Brown said, "has declared our nation's marriage laws to be unconstitutional and not only has refused to defend them, his administration is actively working to repeal them in the courts. He's come out against state constitutional amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. And he has appointed leaders of the same-sex 'marriage' movement as national co-chairs of his reelection campaign.

Incredibly, Obama still apparently claims to personally support traditional marriage. With friends like President Obama, the institution of marriage doesn't need enemies."

Compiled by Michael Foust, associate editor of Baptist Press.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012election; abortion; bizarroworld; dogandponyshow; election2012; endorsement; endorsements; evangelicals; evangelicalsrscrewed; kenyanbornmuzzie; massachusetts; michigan; mittromney; nationalrighttolife; newtgingrich; prolife; ricksantorum; romney; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-298 last
To: onyx

Exactly, Onyx. Sarah is doing what she has to do.


251 posted on 04/13/2012 5:40:58 PM PDT by CatherineofAragon (Time for a write-in campaign...Darryl Dixon for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Well you didn’t expect them to endorse Obama, did you?


252 posted on 04/13/2012 7:15:38 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Of course not.
Showing their weak pro life commitment, they
voted for a man with a very checkered abortion
record. They didn’t have to endorse anyone
yet. Newt is still ostensibly in, MR doesn’t
yet have the delegates, and no one knows what
will happen at the convention.


253 posted on 04/13/2012 7:35:38 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

They’re just reflecting the reality of the situation. I don’t believe Newt can garner the votes needed, and apparently neither does the Committee.


254 posted on 04/13/2012 7:56:33 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ; onyx; butterdezillion; RitaOK; Jim Robinson; mojitojoe; CatherineofAragon

We don’t know what’s going to happen with certainty yet as the days/months roll on, do we. And what’s that got to do with it anyway? This is allegedly a pro life organization endorsing someone who’s amply demonstrated he’s NOT a trustworthy pro lifer.

~~~~~~~~~~

*snip*

However, when I was looking around for more information on the issue, I found this Politifact piece from last cycle which had a different take:

The Thompson campaign, which has been playing up the former U.S. senator’s antiabortion stances, sent out this e-mail in November 2007:

“So what sort of services does Romney’s health care plan provide? Per the state Web site: $50 co-pay for abortions.

“While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover ‘medically necessary’ abortions in state-subsidized health plans, Mitt Romney’s plan covers ALL abortions — no restrictions.”

And it’s true.

Romney’s campaign counters that the decision about what services to cover was ultimately left up to the independent Commonwealth Care Authority.

But Romney was well-represented: Of the six policy-making members of the authority’s 10-member board, half are appointed by the governor, and half by the state attorney general. Half of the ex-officio members also are appointed by the governor, including the chairman — the governor’s secretary of administration and finance — and the state insurance commission.

Although Romney shares responsiblity with the state legislature and the program’s board, Commonwealth Care was his pet project, and he takes credit for it. We find Thompson’s claims true.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/294288/santorum-camp-attacks-romney-romneycare-funding-abortions-katrina-trinko

Flip flopper at very best is the accurate appraisal of MR. How proud must he feel that Obama celebrated the 6 yr anniversary of Romneycare this week.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/12/obama-campaign-salutes-romneycare-anniversary/

As they say, watch what they do, NOT what they say.

It’s NOT over, ‘til it’s over.


255 posted on 04/13/2012 8:20:59 PM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: onyx
A Monty Python scene comes to mind.

“What are you going to do, bleed on me?”

I am not singing high praises to Romney, you are dishonest if you claim otherwise.

I simply refuse to allow you are anyone else to sing the praises of Obama, and you do just that with the delusional postings about Obama and Romney being identical, as they clearly are not.

As for your “dear friends”??

Give me a break, those who pick fights should have the ability to defend themselves, and the ability to take it as well as dish it out.

It is highly unlikely that your political or legal accomplishments, on behalf of the Conservative cause, would ever measure up to mine.

I have no need for your lectures and I am amused by your ignorant, defensive insults.

Guess what?

Truth does NOT change, and I speak the TRUTH!

You find the truth “tiresome” as you live in denial and self-delusion.

256 posted on 04/13/2012 9:32:05 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: trisham

heat
kitchen

You attacked the NRLC.
I defended the NRLC by asking what wonderful accomplishments YOU have, on behalf of the unborn.

That is a very legitimate question, if you think YOUR ideas and strategy are some how “superior” -—

You respond with a crybaby tantrum and accuse me of personal attacks?

Get over yourself.


257 posted on 04/13/2012 9:36:41 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT; STARWISE; ConfidentConservative; GeronL; Antoninus; Lazlo in PA; cripplecreek; ...
105 posted on Fri Apr 13 2012 01:45:04 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by CharlesWayneCT: “National Right-to-Life isn’t God. It’s a human organization, run by flawed humans. It is political, and therefore makes political calculations. I’ve seen the state organizations endorse pro-life democrat incumbents against better pro-life republican challengers, simply because they wanted to encourage pro-life democrats, knowing that a democrat majority was bad for the pro-life movement. But they are a good group, and they have sound reasons for their endorsements.”

We agree.

The NRA, National Right-to-Life, and similar organizations are single-issue advocacy groups. Sometimes a long-term Democrat incumbent can be very effective on gun issues or abortion or whatever. I don't dispute that — pro-gun Democrats have historically been critical to killing anti-gun legislation and there was a point that pro-life Democrats were providing necessary majorities to keep important legislation from being derailed by Democratic Party leaders. It's pretty hard for the Senate or House leadership to keep a bill bottled up in committee when it's not just Republicans but also high-level Democrats who are demanding a vote.

But Romney has a track record of telling abortionists and homosexual marriage advocates that he wanted their endorsement because he'd be an effective advocate for their views in the Republican Party!

Also, we're not talking about the general election. I can understand why NRTL might back Romney over Obama there as the “least bad” candidate. But somebody explain to me why these organizations decided to back Mitt Romney when 1) he probably doesn't need their endorsement in the primary, and 2) the nomination fight isn't over yet.

I'm not happy at all about the National Right to Life endorsement. I believe all it did was antagonize conservatives by giving “cover” to Mitt Romney. and for no good reason since at this point there's a good chance he's going to win the nomination anyway without their help.

I really can't see any good reason for this Right-to-Life endorsement of Romney at this point. It seems like the endorsement risks damaging the organizations without providing meaningful help to the candidate they're endorsing.

Did Newt Gingrich do something decades ago to torque off Right to Life and the anti-homosexual marriage lobby? I can see no good reason for this endorsement, even from a single-issue perspective.

258 posted on 04/13/2012 9:38:16 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
"But Romney has a track record of telling abortionists and homosexual marriage advocates that he wanted their endorsement because he'd be an effective advocate for their views in the Republican Party"

Darrell

You're missing the point.

The Republican Party has made a calculated decision that it can win without Social Conservatives...or, more correctly...without pandering to Social Conservatives.

They are right.

Social Conservatives, by limiting themselves to JUST a couple/three issues have so marginalized themselves that they have become more of an election liability than asset.

Think about it.

"Social Conservatives" have, historically, NOT been reliable Republican voters. The Reagan years were an anomaly.

In fact, as many Social Conservatives vote Democrat today as those who vote Republican.

Why would the Republican Party make a special place for them? After all, their power is the primaries, NOT the General Election.

SoCons need to get over this idea that they will determine who the GOP nominee and POTUS will be. They are 10% of the general election vote. They hold less clout then blacks in the Democratic Party...and don't have even 10% of the sympathizers of the blacks.

I'm not SoCons should reduce their voice or demand. I'm saying folks are waking up to the numbers and calculating otherwise.

We'll see if they're wrong.

I don't think they are.

SoCons that are conservatives will vote GOP. SoCons that are liberal will vote Democrat.

259 posted on 04/13/2012 10:08:54 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: katiedidit1
167 posted on Fri Apr 13 2012 10:28:36 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by katiedidit1: “Why is it the evangelicals and right to lifers can forgive a man that supported abortion but they can't forgive Newt for his divorces?”

Check my posting history... I've spent a fair amount of time since Santorum’s withdrawal by writing on Christian principles in voting, and a key issue for me is that I believe it's important to cite chapter-and-verse why an evangelical can vote for Newt Gingrich in good conscience.

Here are some examples:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2870368/posts?page=1196#1196
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2870368/posts?page=1204#1204
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2871012/posts?page=1333#1333
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2871012/posts?page=1345#1345

I'm not very happy about backing a person with Gingrich's background, but I will vote for a repentant adulterer before I'll vote for a baby-killer who doesn't appear to have seriously repented of his wickedness.

It really is that simple.

260 posted on 04/13/2012 10:13:00 PM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

I can’t think of anything Newt did against those issues in particular.

I know for certainty that Romney is totally on the wrong side.

Maybe he paid them off? He seems to pay money to those who endorse him.


261 posted on 04/13/2012 10:19:04 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name

“God forgives divorces but NEVER KILLING OF helpless babies.”

God can forgive even that, because of the crucified Jesus. Many women have had blood on their hands because of abortion, to be forgiven and cleansed because of His.

“Satan is the master of lies. Mitt is plain evil.”

Spot-on. The devil has TWO candidates running this time.


262 posted on 04/14/2012 12:07:53 AM PDT by PastorBooks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: TBP

The definition of CORRUPTION.


263 posted on 04/14/2012 12:28:29 AM PDT by AmericanInTokyo (Oh, well. SEE YOU IN THE CAMPS. (Hope your forearm tatoo doesnt hurt too much)....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PastorBooks

Sorry, when one deliberately seeks after a candidate who is evil and supports it for this nation - it’s not like a personal sin. His PRO HOMO stance and all the rest - he is evil, they chose evil and not goodness.

They aren’t under His protection because anyone who is His is repulsed at evil. He has no obligation to them, they belong to another. Life or death, choose life. There is death to this country to. There was only one candidate who would bring life to this country and evil lied about him from every side and set it up to keep him from rising and some were glad to see him fall and continue to lie about him.

Yes, satan has his two minions and he is hell bent to sit in our WH and destroy our nation for sure. Either way he wants in. As we know, satan has come to kill/rob/destroy. And he has two who are more than ready to oblige him in that. Pretty pathetic when some are saying he could be good. Total clueless - it’s no wonder they are so easily duped, they don’t even know evil when they see it’s actions.


264 posted on 04/14/2012 1:33:49 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: PastorBooks

Sorry, when one deliberately seeks after a candidate who is evil and supports it for this nation - it’s not like a personal sin. His PRO HOMO stance and all the rest - he is evil, they chose evil and not goodness.

They aren’t under His protection because anyone who is His is repulsed at evil. He has no obligation to them, they belong to another. Life or death, choose life. There is death to this country to. There was only one candidate who would bring life to this country and evil lied about him from every side and set it up to keep him from rising and some were glad to see him fall and continue to lie about him.

Yes, satan has his two minions and he is hell bent to sit in our WH and destroy our nation for sure. Either way he wants in. As we know, satan has come to kill/rob/destroy. And he has two who are more than ready to oblige him in that. Pretty pathetic when some are saying he could be good. Total clueless - it’s no wonder they are so easily duped, they don’t even know evil when they see it’s actions. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil..”.


265 posted on 04/14/2012 1:38:50 AM PDT by presently no screen name
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon; Nobama_ever; Mariner; caww; Antoninus; Lazlo in PA; AmericanInTokyo; ...
170 posted on Fri Apr 13 2012 10:32:25 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by CatherineofAragon: “Jimmy Carter, a devout Christian? The Jimmy Carter who says he believes homosexuals should be allowed to marry because Christ has no problem with it? LOL”

230 posted on Fri Apr 13 2012 14:43:51 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Nobama_ever: “Lol. Agreed, but at the time, Carter was seen as a better representation of Christian principles to evangelical groups because Reagan was divorced! Now we all know it’s a farce to think Carter was more religious...he’s an anti-semite and hardly a decent man!”

Like many liberals, Jimmy Carter's views have gotten worse over the years.

I don't know for sure whether Carter supported homosexual marriage during the 1976 election, but if he did, he certainly didn't talk about it and the millions of evangelicals who voted for him as the “Christian candidate” running against Gerald Ford didn't know that. Certainly there were warning signs with Carter, but nothing that extreme or that obvious.

The time between the 1976 and 1980 elections is generally considered a watershed for traditional Southern Democrats, when evangelicals realized that it's important to vote according to Christian principles and that casting their votes for a professing born-again believer wasn't always the best way to exercise those principles.

259 posted on Sat Apr 14 2012 00:08:54 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by Mariner: “SoCons need to get over this idea that they will determine who the GOP nominee and POTUS will be. They are 10% of the general election vote. They hold less clout then blacks in the Democratic Party...and don't have even 10% of the sympathizers of the blacks. I'm not SoCons should reduce their voice or demand. I'm saying folks are waking up to the numbers and calculating otherwise. We'll see if they're wrong. I don't think they are. SoCons that are conservatives will vote GOP. SoCons that are liberal will vote Democrat.”

You may be right.

The national media after the 2010 election spent a lot of time talking about how the conservative movement's “foot soldiers” were no longer Christian conservatives but rather secular conservative Tea Partiers. Obviously there's a lot of overlap between the two groups, but they're not identical and there are important differences in their emphasis.

To get someone like Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee indicates a triumph of the economic conservative wing of the Republican Party over the social conservatives. I think that is a very, very bad thing.

266 posted on 04/14/2012 4:23:25 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: KSanders

Sorry, I’m not a huge Palin fan anywise, so just because she - as a Party player - has to mouth confidences about Romney doesn’t mean I have to give any credence to them.


267 posted on 04/14/2012 5:10:45 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina
To get someone like Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee indicates a triumph of the economic conservative wing of the Republican Party over the social conservatives. I think that is a very, very bad thing.

I don't believe any such animal exists. Its either liberal or conservative and this imaginary economic conservative/social moderate is an intentional attempt to blur the line between conservative and liberal. I have yet to see one of these social moderates take a truly conservative stance in a tough fiscal fight. They will always take the easy route over the right route.
268 posted on 04/14/2012 5:20:23 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; onyx
It is highly unlikely that your political or legal accomplishments, on behalf of the Conservative cause, would ever measure up to mine.

My my, K58, aren't you a tiresome, arrogant little twit?

Your attitude is that of the GOP-E - "How dare you disagree, don't you realise who I am?"

Yeah, I know who you are. You're part of the problem. You're part of the tottering, sell-out, go-along-to-get-along crowd who has gotten us to where we're at today. The crowd who needs to be retired - forcibly, if they will not do so voluntarily - are replaced by people who actually know what conservatism is and will fight for it.

269 posted on 04/14/2012 5:21:40 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek; AmericanInTokyo; Antoninus; Lazlo in PA; writer33; napscoordinator; ...
268 posted on Sat Apr 14 2012 07:20:23 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by cripplecreek: “I don't believe any such animal exists. Its either liberal or conservative and this imaginary economic conservative/social moderate is an intentional attempt to blur the line between conservative and liberal. I have yet to see one of these social moderates take a truly conservative stance in a tough fiscal fight. They will always take the easy route over the right route.”

You're raising a really important question. I may need to clarify here.

I believe economic conservatives, national defense conservatives, and social issues conservatives differ mostly in emphasis. It's a difference of degree, not of basic kinds.

I happen to consider myself in all three categories. In addition to being an evangelical Christian, I live and work outside Fort Leonard Wood where I moved after 9/11 to take a (civilian) job in Army Public Affairs, so I'm obviously a strong supporter of the military. While I'm not terribly interested in the nuts-and-bolts of fiscal policy, I own a business and I believe socialism is unbiblical because it is a form of state-sanctioned theft, so I'm an economic conservative as well though I don't usually describe myself in those terms.

I can think of lots of people who are trained economists in academia or government who know far more than me about fiscal policy, as well as lots of successful small and large business owners, for whom economic conservative issues are front-and-center on their priority list. Does that mean they're socially liberal? Not necessarily, and in this community, often they're conservative evangelicals or retired military personnel for whom national defense issues are extremely important.

I think a lot of Newt Gingrich supporters were primarily concerned about economic conservative issues or national defense issues. I think that concern was undergirding a lot of the objections to Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, as well as to George Bush's “compassionate conservative” emphasis.

I can respect that. I draw the line when somebody starts sounding like a libertarian whose focus is on free enterprise and wants a values-free form of conservatism.

As I've said a number of times over the last couple of days, Sodom and Gomorrah were doing well economically, too:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2013:10-15&version=KJV

Look what happened to them as a result of wickedness. Lot was the “economic conservative” of his day who chose the well-watered cities of the plain; Abram (later Abraham) was left with the dry pastures of the hills but the blessings of God, which in the long run were far more important. Lot had to be rescued twice, and ended his days living in abject poverty with his only progeny being the fruit of incest.

Those who seek the blessings of God without wanting to worship God end with neither.

270 posted on 04/14/2012 6:34:56 AM PDT by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy
You have the arrogance if inexperience.

I have actually been PERSONNALLY involved in the defeat of over 30 different “RINO” Republicans in the Primary.

I actually recruited many of those conservative candidates myself.

You are very, very immature, as is evidenced by your posts. Everyone who disagrees with YOU is branded a “liberal” or a “Rino” or part of the “GOP-E” -—

If is very easy for me to make negative statements about you, as it is very clear to anyone with any real experience that you do not know what you are talking about, and that you do not know how to strategize or WIN!

271 posted on 04/14/2012 8:00:04 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy; Kansas58; onyx
Your attitude is that of the GOP-E - "How dare you disagree, don't you realise who I am?"

Yeah, I know who you are. You're part of the problem. You're part of the tottering, sell-out, go-along-to-get-along crowd who has gotten us to where we're at today. The crowd who needs to be retired - forcibly, if they will not do so voluntarily - are replaced by people who actually know what conservatism is and will fight for it.

*********************************

Exactly right. Well said, Yashcheritsiy.

272 posted on 04/14/2012 8:20:27 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; onyx; xzins; All
Mitt Romney has had no such conversion. He was always pro-abortion until he decided to run for president six or so years ago and he realized that he had to say he was pro-life in order to win the GOP nomination. If he had experienced a real change he would talk about it, but he doesn't, he wants people to believe he has always been pro-life and this is a lie.

************************************

Agreed. I hate to accuse someone of lying about being pro-life, but I fear that Romney has claimed that belief for purely expedient reasons. Someone posted a picture of Romney and his family yesterday or the day before, if I recall correctly, and the implication was that this was evidence that Romney is pro-life. But is it? I am unconvinced. His political record says not.

273 posted on 04/14/2012 8:51:24 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: trisham

LOL
You are BOTH delusional!
You are both very egotistical, as well!
There are countless conservatives who have the scars to prove their battles with entrenched liberal Republicans over the years.
For Heaven’s sake, many of us have made national news fighting with Governors and other elected officials, over the Republican Platform and other issues.
You demand that we all agree, 100%, with YOU or you will then try to lump US in with those we, ourselves, have been fighting for decades?

You will NEVER win anything by being such anti-social, insulting, politically immature, disrespectful and ungrateful hot heads.

I do not expect you to agree with me on everything.

However, the reason you find yourselves marginalized (And you ARE marginalized, even though you do not realize it) Is that you are not capable, it seems, of learning one simple rule:

Politics is about ATTRACTING support for your cause!

Your rants and your statements REPELL people. You seem to think politics, or what you seem to think of as your particular brand of “conservative” pollitics is your own little Sorority and that you have the right to kick people out.

YOU have become your own little “elite” and you clearly think that you are far to pure to allow anyone else to join your little, (very very little) clique!


274 posted on 04/14/2012 8:58:23 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

You got all that from my few posts and then call me delusional? What a joke.


275 posted on 04/14/2012 9:05:55 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Yes, I do.
But I did say “both” -— when you agree with hot heads, as you have done, you take responsibility for what those hot heads say!
You also, yourself, did make some religious comments about Romney, which IMHO are out of bounds and do work to REPEL people from the conservative cause.


276 posted on 04/14/2012 9:08:34 AM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
If is very easy for me to make negative statements about you, as it is very clear to anyone with any real experience that you do not know what you are talking about, and that you do not know how to strategize or WIN!

Yawn. You want a medal or something?

People like you are the ones we need to replace. Not because you yourself are a liberal or a RINO, but because you're an enabler.

Sorry if I'm not as "experienced" at playing the political games you enjoy. That's because the sort of political games you enjoy make me sick to my stomach because of how ultimately futile and defiling they are.

We will win without you, and we'll win without Romney.

277 posted on 04/14/2012 9:14:03 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: trisham; wagglebee; onyx; xzins; Kansas58
Agreed. I hate to accuse someone of lying about being pro-life, but I fear that Romney has claimed that belief for purely expedient reasons. Someone posted a picture of Romney and his family yesterday or the day before, if I recall correctly, and the implication was that this was evidence that Romney is pro-life. But is it? I am unconvinced. His political record says not.

Ah, but you see? According to some on here, if you actually want conservative candidates instead of spineless lying RINOs, then you're arrogant and inexperienced and don't know how to win.

See, if you want to learn to play the game like a pro, then you're going to have drop all this junk about "principles" and stuff. You're going to have to learn to scratch backs and trade favours and smoke cigars in the back room with the other politicos. If that means going along with smokescreens like "Romney is pro-life," then so be it. If you want to get anywhere in politics and be a big-shot player, then you're going to have to start learning to do what's best for the country Republican Party leadership caste.

278 posted on 04/14/2012 9:30:52 AM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

If politics is the art of violating core principles, then I pray never to be a politician, and I pray there always be true conservatives someplace.

Let me repeat, though, because I don’t think you have actually heard what is being said:

“Romney is not a conservative at all.”

So, it is not a matter of compromise....there no foundation to begin with in the first place. He is not one of us.


279 posted on 04/14/2012 10:05:38 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You also, yourself, did make some religious comments about Romney, which IMHO are out of bounds and do work to REPEL people from the conservative cause.

****************************

Produce those quotes. I'd like to see them.

280 posted on 04/14/2012 11:18:24 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; trisham; DJ MacWoW

You have an opinion of yourself that’s in excess of what your sorry self deserves.

A self love that’s truly disgusting and without a scant of humilty.

A man of your importance, shouldn’t be wasting his time here with us lesser informed, TEA Party Conservatives.

You belong with your RINOS uniting YOUR Party.


281 posted on 04/14/2012 11:23:37 AM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy; Kansas58
My my, K58, aren't you a tiresome, arrogant little twit? Your attitude is that of the GOP-E - "How dare you disagree, don't you realise who I am?" Yeah, I know who you are. You're part of the problem. You're part of the tottering, sell-out, go-along-to-get-along crowd who has gotten us to where we're at today. The crowd who needs to be retired - forcibly, if they will not do so voluntarily - are replaced by people who actually know what conservatism is and will fight for it.
B T T T ! ! ! ©

282 posted on 04/14/2012 11:25:41 AM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: darrellmaurina

I don’t think I can call Mittens an economic conservative, he’s not a conservative at all


283 posted on 04/14/2012 11:39:58 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Perfectly stated.

God bless you.


284 posted on 04/14/2012 11:43:50 AM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: PastorBooks

Thank you very much.

God bless you.


285 posted on 04/14/2012 11:45:04 AM PDT by onyx (SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC, DONATE MONTHLY. If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy; trisham; wagglebee; onyx; xzins; Kansas58

See, if you want to learn to play the game like a pro, then you’re going to have drop all this junk about “principles” and stuff. You’re going to have to learn to scratch backs and trade favours and smoke cigars in the back room with the other politicos. If that means going along with smokescreens like “Romney is pro-life,” then so be it. If you want to get anywhere in politics and be a big-shot player, then you’re going to have to start learning to do what’s best for the country Republican Party leadership caste.

~~~~~~

Boy .. is that ever the truth! And it’s not R or D .. it’s the Beltway Insider syndrome .. where empires and fortunes are built and defended, dealing and groveling for sequential election wins for the power to appropriate trillions, endless terms, huge pensions and proper societal homage. Without term limits, this onslaught continues. We’re forever being ‘marketed.’

Kansas: Do you align with and respect Karl Rove?


286 posted on 04/14/2012 11:47:54 AM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: butterdezillion

Once Santorum decided to suspend his campaign, the race for the nomination was effectively won by Romney.

You can choose to pretend that since more states will be voting, it’s still a primary, but Romney will win them handily and gear up for november.

for most politically attuned people, they are looking ahead to the inevitable Romney vs Obama matchup in november. NRL is doing that, and they strongly want Obama defeated.


287 posted on 04/14/2012 5:44:18 PM PDT by WOSG (Anyone But Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Here here! it’s time for the non-politicians to take a turn.


288 posted on 04/14/2012 6:04:10 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

They’ve got all the time in the world to endorse Romney AFTER the primary is done. As long as there is a genuine pro-life candidate still running, why jump now? Maybe because they’ve been bought off?

I will do everything in my power to make sure that I have a candidate to vote for who has NOT used government power to force Catholics into abortions. To force someone to have an abortion against their will would be unconscionable. To force somebody to PERFORM an abortion against their will is just as unconscionable.

And if Republicans are willing to choose somebody whose crowning glory is precisely that, then they are just as dead in their souls as the Germans who watched Hitler kill millions - BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE ENABLING ACT OF 1933 WAS THE VOTE FOR THE WHOLE ENCHILADA, AFTER WHICH THERE WAS NO LEGAL OPTION TO RESIST WHAT WAS COMING.

If we want to not have tyranny, the time to resist is now, because if Romney is our candidate then we only have the option between Tyranny A and Tyranny B. Romney’s is a little bit slower than Obama’s, that’s all. That’s what even Soros says.

The time to fight is right now. It’s 1933 in Germany. The point of no return.

I changed my voter registration from independent to republican yesterday, so I can vote for Newt Gingrich. You may as well tell me to go to hell and forget about voting because I don’t count. Never. As long as there is breath in me and there is a candidate who truly values the US Constitution, I will never accept a tyrant instead - even if he’s a little bit weaker tyrant than Obama. I will drink pure water over water that’s only slightly poisoned, every time.


289 posted on 04/14/2012 6:11:38 PM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: LovedSinner; STARWISE
Maybe Romney will end up being pro-life, but I think pro-lifers, pro-traditional marriage voters (and social conservatives in general) need much more information, since right now Romney’s record is quite mixed. Maybe I am even being generous to Romney by calling his record mixed.

Yup...you are...

(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
Assessment: [Pro-abortion, then, eh, Mitt?]

(2): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98)
= Assessment: So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"

(3) Romney now invokes in this thread's article a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.

Well, what are the 1994 facts?

FACT a: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood...
FACT b: On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
"Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts
"Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts
"In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts
FACT c: 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
= Assessment: Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent

(4): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
= Assessment: So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)

(5) “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05)
= Assessment: Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?

(6): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research
= Assessment: (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)

(7): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!

(8): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

(9): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. Assessment: (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).

(10): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07)
= Assessment: OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?

(11): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
= Assessment: Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!

(12) "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007
= Assessment: OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(13): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
= Assessment: That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?

(14): By December of 2007, you'd think after THREE supposed FULL years of being "pro-life," he'd have his talking points down by then...But no: December 4, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such a schizophrenic "candidate!"

(15): Now we come to the 2011-2012 campaign. The Romneys do an interesting Parade Magazine interview (Nov. 2011). Ann Romney is interviewed: In the past you’ve said he’s changed positions only once, on abortion. Was that your doing? No, no, I never talked to Mitt about that. Our personal opinions have NEVER CHANGED; we’ve ALWAYS BEEN PRO-LIFE: (Ann Romney Reveals Mitt's Softer Side)

What? Did you Romneybots & would-be Romney voters not get the Romney campaign memo issued late in 2011: Per Ann Romney, the Romneys have "ALWAYS been pro-life..." They personally "NEVER CHANGED."

Which all means you can't trust a damn word Romney says. He has no personal integrity -- no core values.

290 posted on 04/15/2012 4:04:02 PM PDT by Colofornian ( The Romneybots are political descendents of Esau: Trading a FR inheritance for a 'lentil soup' guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
I hope these threads do not become a joke and a laughingstock. Radical Birthers, Mormon bashers and fringe cranks...

If you are so anti-bashing, then why are you bashing???

291 posted on 04/15/2012 4:06:40 PM PDT by Colofornian ( The Romneybots are political descendents of Esau: Trading a FR inheritance for a 'lentil soup' guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; All
However? The pro-life movement WILL be better off with Romney over Obama.

Too often typical of too much of the pro-life movement...measuring how it impacts the "movement"...vs. babies themselves...

Why don't you go out on a lecture tour as to how RomneyCare's $50 abortion -- and often in many cases - $0 abortions (100% taxpayer funded) "benefit" both those babies? (along w/the taxpayers who have to answer to God as to why they didn't object to how their taxes were used?)

292 posted on 04/15/2012 4:25:12 PM PDT by Colofornian ( The Romneybots are political descendents of Esau: Trading a FR inheritance for a 'lentil soup' guy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

All that you purists are doing is further isolating yourselves from mainstream conservatives. You will not enjoy the spoils of victory if you do.


293 posted on 04/16/2012 11:04:48 AM PDT by Sarabaracuda (Mitt Romney 2012 - Strength, Freedom, Prosperity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sarabaracuda
All that you purists are doing is further isolating yourselves from mainstream conservatives.

Good. Because right now I'm only looking for true leaders who won't compromise the core principles of the republic for anyone, or for any party.

You will not enjoy the spoils of victory if you do.

I'm betting that you and I define "victory" quite a bit differently.

294 posted on 04/16/2012 1:22:21 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ('Throw all the bums out.' It's not a slogan. It's the survival of the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Sarabaracuda

If we’re “purists,” what does that make you, an “impurist”?

Pretty good label for Romney Republicans, frankly.


295 posted on 04/16/2012 1:26:12 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ('Throw all the bums out.' It's not a slogan. It's the survival of the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58; Yashcheritsiy
You have the arrogance if inexperience.

I could say the same about you.

I have actually been PERSONNALLY involved in the defeat of over 30 different “RINO” Republicans in the Primary.

I've been involved in at least ten times as many. Does that necessarily make my opinion superior to yours?

I actually recruited many of those conservative candidates myself.

"Conservative" like Mitt Romney, or actually conservative?

You are very, very immature, as is evidenced by your posts. Everyone who disagrees with YOU is branded a “liberal” or a “Rino” or part of the “GOP-E” -—

Actions speak louder than words. And supporting the most liberal governor in the history of the republic is an action.

If is very easy for me to make negative statements about you, as it is very clear to anyone with any real experience that you do not know what you are talking about, and that you do not know how to strategize or WIN!

I'll restrain myself.

296 posted on 04/16/2012 1:37:13 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ('Throw all the bums out.' It's not a slogan. It's the survival of the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; All
I have been digging out from the Wichita tornado since Saturday night.
I just got my power back on.
Lost some shingles and lost a big pear tree, but other than that I am OK.
Lots of neighbors got hurt worse than me, tried to help where I could.

Let us continue these arguments on another thread, I am sure an opportunity will arise.

I was not being rude or ignoring anyone, on purpose.

297 posted on 04/16/2012 8:18:40 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

Glad you’re okay. Praise the LORD.


298 posted on 04/16/2012 8:58:23 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ('Throw all the bums out.' It's not a slogan. It's the survival of the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-298 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson