not worth the pixels it takes to display it:
posted on 05/09/2012 11:53:02 AM PDT
Problem with his declaration is that his record of Progressive Liberalism and his refusal to agree to put DADT back into place coupled with his continual lying about his record means he is saying what you and others willing to believe him want him to say.
Legal analysts say candidate Romney is different from Gov. Romney.
Liberty Counsel Action Vice President Matt Barber said Romneys appointments were constitutional living document poster children.
Many of Romneys appointments were not only liberal, not only Democrats, but were radical counter-constitutionalists. How on earth can we expect that, as president, he would be any different? Barber asked rhetorically.
Actions speak louder than words, and Mitt Romneys actions as governor scream from the rooftops that he cannot be trusted with this most important of presidential responsibilities.
Barber cites two specific examples of Romneys radical appointments.
As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney not only failed in this regard, he appointed a number of very liberal, if not radical, living, breathing-minded judges to the bench, Barber said.
Two that come to mind were extreme homosexualists Marianne C. Hinkle and Stephen Abany, he said. They both had a long history of pro-gay activism, yet Romney didnt hesitate to put them on the bench.
These are people who outrageously believe the postmodern notion that newfangled gay rights trump our constitutionally guaranteed First Amendment rights, he said.
Baldwin agreed, citing Romneys statements about the two requirements he actually used when selecting judges.
Romney did focus on two criteria: their legal experience and whether they would be tough on crime. In other words, the nominee could be a gay activist or a pro-big government, pro-quota, pro-gun control Democrat Party hack who detests every judicial principle treasured by our founding fathers, Baldwin said. But if he happens to be tough on crime and have prosecutorial experience, he gets past the Romney filter. Many of Romneys nominees fit that description.
Baldwin added that Romney did have some ideological criteria for many of his nominees:
It was criteria commonly used by the left. For starters, his nominees were mostly pro-abortion. Indeed, while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney told the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) that his judicial nominees would more likely protect abortion rights than would those of a Democrat Governor, according to notes from a person attending this meeting.
Another Romney criteria, Baldwin explained, was diversity.
The other criteria consistently emphasized by Gov. Romney in deciding judicial selections was diversity. This is the silly notion that judgeships should reflect the population in terms of race and gender and even sexual orientation, regardless of a persons judicial philosophy, he said. Clearly, the use of diversity quotas demonstrates Romneys lack of a coherent conservative worldview.
If you could actually get Romney to be honest and admit he was a Progressive Liberal as Governor of MA and that most, if not all, of his actions were not conservative in nature, and that he was wrong, then his so-called pledge might have some meaning, but as it is, given the constant lying by Romney about both his record and his policiy positions, nobody in good conscience can believe a word he has to say.
posted on 05/09/2012 12:11:17 PM PDT
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson