Skip to comments.Is Mitt Becoming More Conservative?
Posted on 08/31/2012 12:49:30 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
click here to read article
I was wondering if you knew, not your opinion.
“”Tell me something, and please answer, you are a Romney supporter and vetted him carefully, did you know throughout this campaign, that Mitt was a health of the mother abortion supporter?
Did any or all of you Romney supporters reading this know that, or is this a bombshell that just dropped on you?””
Mitt is sure is starting to act conservative. Some FRpers FORGET that people CAN and DO CHANGE.
Mitt will be pushed whichever way his followers are pushing him. If we tea-partiers shout more and demonstrate more and come out more, we can push him more to our side. I have no illusions about Mitt being anywhere near a Palin, but he’s pliable, so lets ply him to our side.
Ignore the trolls!
“Is Mitt Becoming More Conservative?”
I mean really people have access to LexusNexis, Government.com,org,net, all his speeches, government business, private sector records, etc... people who took to the time to look into Mitt Romney know exactly who he is and what he stands for. There is no guessing about who Mitt is anymore. It is all out there with no interpretation needed.
It was a nice speech on American exceptionalism but he is not going to throw away his core beliefs out the window based on a campaign speech.
That isn't true at all, it never has been, the man has been on a single minded political road his entire life, liberal. The man is 66 years old and has never wavered from his political beliefs except when campaigning for this national position to rule the GOP, now that he has wrapped up the nomination he has already moved against the tea party and the right, and reverted back to his pro-abortion position.
Once the election is over, he will do what he wants as he reshapes the party into the image of himself and his mentor, William Weld.
You answer post 52, did you know? Or are you shocked?
Continue rolling toward a dictatorship? We’re already there...
Yeah, AUGUST 27, 2012, Mitt Romney CHANGED BACK TO HIS PRO-ABORTION POSITION.
Here is a good mental exercise.
Go through the list of everyone who spoke at the RNC.
Write out all the names of those who are conservative and/or TEA party.
Post it here.
It was “Romney’s convention” after all...
The time of fighting yesterday’s battles are done.
Time to get Obama OUT of the White House!
August 27, was only 4 days ago, shouldn’t we take up that battle?
I mean the primaries. They are done.
I know the primary is over, Mitt says that he openly campaigned on being a “health of the mother” abortion candidate, is that true?
He won you over, did you know that was his abortion position?
You betcha! :)
We need the Trifecta to start to undo the damage... tons of work to do before November... This was just the start...
Good response to him - they have the attacks but nothing in the way of a better plan (unless it's a secret plan that only folks with their gigantic intellects can possible grasp). I personally believe he was always a bit more conservative than was readily observable - it takes some skills to operate in a 80%+ Dim environment like he did as Gov.
Bub, you have no idea about how deeply involved he has been in fighting hard in the trenches with us for the Conservative cause. You're the Romney troll, so get lost.
I've never been impressed with Mitt and he wasn't even my last choice of all the candidates. But here we are. Given the choice between Romney or Obama, I'll hold my nose and vote for Romney with the hope that Paul Ryan will have his ear. I think Paul understand.
Hasnt he already switched back to being pro-abortion
You must be thinking of the other guy you and others would as soon see reelected, such is your virulent hatred.
We always sneer at the concept of a person who “says what's necessary to get elected” without even considering the possibility that a person with serious long-term goals Conservative goals could do the same.
Romney has paid his dues in both arenas — politics and business — and the more I watch him and look at his past record, I am convinced that I am seeing a person who fully understands the old saw that, “politics is the art of the possible”.
His tenacity has to be acknowledged, even by those who deplore him, because without it in all its ruthless glory, he wouldn't be the nominee. I am not pleased at the way he did it, but to throw another cliche out there, “politics ain't beanbag” and he can't fix things until he can get his hands on the controls.
And this is where his selection of Ryan makes the most sense. The businessman side of Romney knows clearly that unless serious repairs are made there, the whole bloody system is going to fall apart. He can do the math.
Ryan is definitely the man to convince the voters about that, and in a way they understand and can agree with.
On the Conservative side, small c Romney has always been a full-fledged Conservative in his personal life. Anti-Mormons, as much as they may dislike the religion, have to admit his life story is a testament to the virtues and values of home, family, charity, good works, patriotism, and professional endeavor.
He may regret some of the deals he made along the way, who doesn't, but I am starting to get the sense that as the magnitude of his task becomes more apparent and the damage done to the nation becomes more frightening, he's made the decision to get back to basics there as well.
Writing all this out, I am still not totally sold, but that is where my gut is taking me right now. And it's not really a bad place.
The begining of the end of era of Obama came via a doc movie.
As was I; I think he could be a great President and amy very comfortable voting a straight Republican ticket. I have no reservation whatsoever. My favorite candidates were Perry and Gingrich but I'm not sure they could have won a general election. I think Romney can. He is an effective communicator and I like his choice of Paul Ryan for VP. If he also brings back John Bolton I will be even more pleased.
Bullspit. He knows nothing about the TEA party movement. Didn’t even know who Santelli is, thinks Palin started it and leads it (she doesn’t — no one does, because it is made up of decentralized local organizations by design — don’t get me wrong, i like and admire Palin, but she wasn’t at the original 9/12 march).
The conservative cause has nothing to do with deeming one religion superior to another. We fight for freedom of religion. We don’t discriminate based on race, creed, or religion. We don’t do class warfare or race baiting.
You want to hook anti-Mormonism to this site, then be prepared to be shouted down by real conservatives who know better because there are more Mormons than just Romney running for office, and they are conservative. Nor do we want lurkers and new/potential conservatives thinking that we accept that around here.
The primaries are over, the candidate nominated, many of us worked hard to make sure a majority of speakers at the RNC are conservative, and we’re not going to let a few purists get in the way of throwing out a Marxist administration.
Romney got the nomination without your help and this site actively campaigning against him. Lick your wounds, focus on the Senate and House races, and stop the infighting. Anything after this is just plain out trolling.
I'm not a Romeny-bott or supporter and didn't "vet" him as you "purists" here have, but I HAVE "vetted" the one all you hate and it appears, would not be bothered if reelected...even if it means the end of our Republic as we have known it for 200+ years.
Ok, your turn: which is worse: taking a position on abortion which includes a "health/life of the mother exception," or one which SUPPORTS KILLING BREATHING, LIVING, HUMAN, BEINGS, which said babies have survived botched abortions: "Infanticide?"
For every issue you and your kind can muster against Mitt and reason to stay home or vote 3rd Party, I/we can come up with dozens of examples showing Dear Reader's position on same as much worse.
Go ahead, take your best shot(s)!!!
Romney is trying to appear to be what he thinks people want him to be. He is a man without any core principles at all.
ansel, you are beating a dead horse..
the people so blinded with removing fubo are willing and able to elect another socialist to take his place...
at best, you may be able to change the mind of 1 person on this site..
you will be called a racist (sound familiar)..
you will be told that if you do not vote for our socialist then you are voting for their socialist...
and so on and so forth..
but, you will not be told why you should vote for mcromney, other than “our socialist is better than their socialist”..
it needs to be put in terms that everyone can understand..
if you vote for a pro abortion candidate, then you back abortion... period... do not lecture me about your own moral stand on this subject if you are willing to give your vote to someone that stand for it..
if you vote for a gay rights candidate, then you back gay rights... period..
if you voter for a gun control candidate, then you back gun control... period..
if you vote for a person that has nominated more liberal judges to the bench than fubo, then you back liberal judges... period..
it is not the people that do not back mcromney that are the haters, racists, or non conservatives..
those that back the above are the non conservatives... period..
Is mitt more conservative than obama? Well... almost anyone that has owned and/or run a business is more conservative than obama. mitt is who and what he is. If he gets elected... he has a chance to redefine himself. So far during this election, he has reaffirmed more of his progressive past than not. IMHO, YMMV (your mileage may vary) etc etc etc.
Since Aug 4, 2012
Here we go with the four year infestation like locusts...
So, learning that he who you and a few others here would has soon see reelected (such that y'all are blinded by your hatred) has lied about "everything" from day one (can you show me an example where he has ever been forthcoming or honest?) "doesn't mean anything to you?"
It's going to be Mitt or Dear Reader; no other choice, so who will it be?
Better yet, who(m) would you rather see as President???
In the case of rape I believe an abortion is compounding the crime. in the case of life of the mother, I cannot judge a woman who has the unenviable position of choosing her life or her unborn child's -- the women who chose to save their child's life are saints.
For women whose health is at risk, this is again the mother's decision, and a difficult one.
But, let me remind you that the number of abortions for this are just 0.1% of all abortions. I got this number from the site http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html -- Poland bans abortions except for: 1. rape, 2. health/life of mother and 3. health issues of the foetus --> I don't understand the meaning of the 3rd, but that's a separate point.
Right now, with these 3, there were only 640 killings in 2010 -- 0.1% of all conceptions.
in the US, by contrast which is freer, nearly 20 to 22% were aborted.
So, I extrapolate this to mean that only 0.1% of abortions are for: 1. rape, 2. health/life of mother.
We had move than 1 million deaths last year. If we can reduce this to 1,000 it is saving the lives of 999,000 -- we should aim for this
as i said above -- look at the bigger picture, in countries where only "health of mother" or rape is allowed as justifications for abortion, the % of conceptions aborted is 0.1% -- focus. I am a guy and I cannot condemn a woman who believes her life is at risk. For those who believe their health is at risk -- I agree, this can be taken broadly, even mental health etc., but take the case of Poland where even that as an excuse does not lead to so many abortions as we have in the USA.
The 99.9% of abortions are just for population maintenance or to allow folks to have their fun and not bear consequences.
We need to focus on saving the 99.9%
It's been a hard road but the both of us finally arrived as Romney supporters.
We battled very hard in the primaries, many times on different sides, some time on the same side, but never on Romney's side.
The primary is over and it is what it is and we can accept reality or become what many on FR have become, reality deniers.
A vote for any third party candidate or withholding your vote only helps obama.
It is simple logic, but you can witness, many FReepers that are usually logical, twist themselves into liberal pretzel logic spouters to defend their Romney hatred and their "reasons" for not voting for Romney.
I'm going to work, donate, call, poll watch and vote for Ryan/Romney 2012 and hopefully celebrate their victory in November. Is it Romney/Ryan or Ryan/Romney, whatever?
Get lost n00b troll. We’re on to you.
I like it when Mitt reminded people about Carter and placed BO in the same category. Home run.
Psst... this election isn’t about abortion, although the Dems will damn try to do just that... It’s about the ECONOMY and HUGE DEBT and PERSONAL LIBERTY...
This same group was doing the same thing with McCain/Palin four years ago, and ver successful. How’d that turn out?
If the American people are sick of their affair with Marxism, then Romney will win. If conservatives do not fight Marxism, they become irrelevant.
We all know that Romney, regardless of his flip-flops on several issues that rankle you, ain't NO OBAMA.
there are two real candidates that are on the ballot in November, Romney and obama, pick one.
A no vote, helps the incumbent.
He MIGHT be pandering to the conservatives a bit, but have his core values changed - not likely. Still even a socialist country club Republican like Willard is much better that the dedicated Marxist Kenyan currently befouling the white house. If Robert Mugabe had a son he would be like 0bama
Is the Mormon card all you GOP-E sheeple got?
I see no substance to Mitt's economic policy whatsoever, regardless of what he says in flowery speeches. Let's look at what Mitt's official campaign cite says: How I'll Tackle Spending, Debt
As is typical, most of this platform position statement is fluff. The real numbers, the money shot, is in the 4th paragraph:
Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. By the end of my first term, I will bring federal spending as a share of GDP down from last years staggering 24.3 percent to 20 percent or below. This level is in line with the historical average and nears the tax revenue our economy generates when healthy. With economic growth of 4% a year, meeting this goal will require approximately $500 billion of spending cuts in 2016, and that would still allow us to undo the Obama administrations irresponsible defense cuts.
This sure sounds good to anyone not really paying attention, but it is riddled with false assumptions and bad math.
He starts off with 2 accurate numbers: current spending IS running at 24% of GDP, and his 20% target IS in line with the historical average of spending vs. GDP. However, his next statement is a stretch: "This level is in line with the historical average and nears the tax revenue our economy generates when healthy".
That last bit in bold is the problem. Our tax revenue right now is $2.3 trillion, only 15% of GDP. Granted, the economy is extremely weak, but the 76-year average for revenue is still only 17% of GDP, so he's still off by $450 billion. The only time our revenues hit 20% of GDP in the last 30 years were the 3 years 1998-2000 - the peak of the dot com bubble, which was an aberration not likely to be repeated.
He also fails to account for the fact that since government spending is a component of GDP, reducing Federal spending will also reduce GDP and will, at least for a short to medium term, reduce revenues further. Not that this is a reason NOT to cut spending, just an accounting fact he ignores.
Then we go on to another HUGE false assumption, which completely blows his math out of the water: "With economic growth of 4% a year".
His numbers, much like Paul Ryan's budget plans, are entirely based on this assumption of sustained 4-5% economic growth. Why is this a problem? Because it's fantasy, and he gives us no clue as to how he's actually going to create this 4% growth.
Why is it fantasy? You only have to look at the history of the past 30 years. When you subtract out debt expansion, we have had NO net economic growth!
No net economic growth in 30 years?! Really? Really!
In 1980, GDP was $2.72 trillion and total outstanding public debt was $0.91 trillion. In 2011, GDP was $15.09 trillion, but public debt swelled to $14.79 trillion! We added $12.37 trillion in GDP at the expense of $13.88 trillion in new debt!
So no, you can't just go throwing around assumptions like "4% economic growth". The bottom line is, Romney's economic plan is smoke and mirrors and still dependent on continuing to run structural budget deficits forever.
Right now we are living in Chicago - running very fast to the Southside.
(We'll deal with Romney when he gets in)
She is a paid media personality just like Beck and Rush. She has a PAC.
She didn’t hop on board until a year after the TEA party movement started.
You can worship whatever you want, but she did not run because of various reasons. Therefore, I am more concerned with those TEA party members who are actually in office or running for office.
When she announces she is putting her name in for RNC chairwoman, then I will gladly support her. But people throwing the baby out with the bath water need to seriously get out of the way and stop disrupting every stinking conversation with their anti-Palin conspiracy theories.