Skip to comments.Tom Hoefling: "Mitt Romney is still a pro-choice democrat, and admits it on his own website"
Posted on 05/02/2012 11:22:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Mitt Romney: Judicial supremacist, anti-republican, pro-choice, democrat.
Here's the proof.
Listen to the eight minute audio HERE .
*Excerpted from May 1, 2012 America's Summit, Restore the Republic call
I’ll be voting for the author of the article at the top of the thread.
I don’t vote for pro-choice democrats.
I would have to say that Mitt "Gay-Marriage-In-Our-Time" Chamberlain is every bit the enemy as the retarded, bows-to-dictators, kenyan pretender that holds the office now.
Only Goode is Good.
Well, you've got the 'referring to yourself in the third person" part down pat.
Should those who supported candidates other than your self, sorry, other than the author of article at the top of the thread, start their own parties?
Oh my goodeness!
EternalVigilance, er, the author of the article at the top of this thread: what do you say to win over the Goode voters?
Here is one web page. I bolded what I think is relevant -my thoughts follow the material from Romney's website.
Mitt Romney is pro-life. He believes it speaks well of the country that almost all Americans recognize that abortion is a problem. And in the quiet of conscience, people of both political parties know that more than a million abortions a year cannot be squared with the good heart of America.
Mitt believes that life begins at conception and wishes that the laws of our nation reflected that view. But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade a case of blatant judicial activism that took a decision that should be left to the people and placed it in the hands of unelected judges. With Roe overturned, states will be empowered through the democratic process to determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate.
Mitt supports the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions. As president, he will end federal funding for abortion advocates like Planned Parenthood. He will protect the right of health care workers to follow their conscience in their work. And he will nominate judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the law.
Because the good heart of America knows no boundaries, a commitment to protecting life should not stop at the waters edge. Taking innocent life is always wrong and always tragic, wherever it happens. The compassionate instincts of this country should not be silent in the face of injustices like Chinas One-Child policy. No one will ever hear a President Romney or his vice president tell the Chinese government that "I fully understand" and wont second guess compulsory sterilization and forced abortion.
Americans have a moral duty to uphold the sanctity of life and protect the weakest, most vulnerable and most innocent among us. As president, Mitt will ensure that American laws reflect Americas values of preserving life at home and abroad.
My thoughts on this:
In essence and in principle, Romney considers a Supreme Court decision issued under the penumbra of privacy as the law of the land in regard to the protection of life.
Further, he maintains that life, an inalienable right endowed us by our Creator, should best be decided by individuals at the State level. Again, in essence and in principle, Romney implies that the inalienable right to life is something to be decided via the democratic process (at the proper level e.g. the States) RATHER than life being an inalienable right to be protected by and at all levels of government.
In a nutshell, this is a morally devoid Pro Choice position very similar to the position advanced by Libertarians.
If the party that is supposed to represent them becomes completely corrupt, totally bereft of principle, and there is no other principled alternative, of course they should build a vehicle to gain representation for what they believe. It’s the American thing to do.
I take note of the fact that Romney Republicans on this thread, as usual, make absolutely no reference to the principles of this free republic, the purposes of the Constitution, or the need for representatives that care about the obligations of the oath to support and defend it. All you have is fear and the desire for power.
Nice hyperbole, but that wasn’t the question.
To rephrase with hype, if those who didn’t support you think your nomination means the party has become completely corrupt, should they start their own party?
I think your answer is yes.
EternalVigilance ..... I am sure I am conservative as him and would agree with him more than Mitt Romney. I would rather have a beer with him. But my eyes are on the prize and that is driving Obama+Mooch out of the White House and only Mitt can do this
Like I have posted, my vote counts because I am in a swing state. I will be voting for the Republican nominee. I still have my Newt button pinned into my car’s dashboard
Rather than seeking to dismantle the government throne that progressives have built THEY seek to put their good king in place rather than the bad king...
True conservatives recognize only one King, the Creator and as such promote no man who seeks to be government king nor promote a government kingdom.
do I think the Obama regime remaining in power is a result of considerable harm? I think that, too, is self-evident. Further I think that result would be the maximum harmful result possible in this election. Where I am disagreeing, with you too perhaps, is in granting the moral or principled high ground here.
I don't listen (too often) to Michael Medved's show...today he had on Jonah Goldberg -- founding online editor of Natl Review.
Goldberg has a book out: The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.
There was one caller to Medved, who Medved said he agreed with, that said some things pertinent to this convo we're having.
It seems to me that with your "greater harm to the republic" comment a few things the caller said resonated with me as to what I found troubling in your comment.
The caller mentioned how in too many countries, the "cold logic" of advocating "the greater good" for the country has resulted in a lot of immoral and oppressive things excused under that umbrella.
The caller emphasized that America is not one of those "cold logic...greater-good" countries...contrasting how we are indeed a "nation of principles."
What I find quite troubling is the highly utilitarian ethic of the "greater good" (or more often, less of a problematic "evil") being touted so much over and above being a nation...a party...of principles.
Thanks for your impeccably-reasoned posts.
As I have pointed out repeatedly, based on the listing of all the polls at Real Clear Politics, there were no polls putting McCain/Palin ahead anywhere near the election, much less "days" before.
There were a total of 7 recognized polls that showed McCain/Palin up over Obama, out of over 130 that were taken from the time Palin was announced.
Of those 7, the last had McCain at +2, and that was 40 days before the election -- weeks, not days.
There was a single outlier poll showing +10, and that was 58 days before the election -- essentially two full months.
Other than the 9/25 outlier, the last poll showing McCain/Palin ahead was 9/11 -- 54 days before the election.
The McCain/Palin poll average was never more than 2.9% ahead of Obama.
The McCain/Palin ticket truly only led Obama in the immediate bounce during and after the convention.
McCain's poll collapse corresponded with his inept handling of the financial crisis.
Frankly, it's sad to see a conservative blaming Palin, even indirectly, for the McCain/Palin ticket problems. Palin was attacked brutally, but she handled it admirably, and it wasn't Palin that pulled down the ticket. It was McCain.
Thanks for the kind words. Maybe down the road I will have the opportunity to win you over.
Much appreciated!!! :) I can remember when Bob Dole carried around a pocket Constitution, he would whip it out to show people the 10th Amendment. This was the real Bob Dole not the guy who ran in 1996 for President
Didn’t think you’d be around long. Good riddance.
Thanks for your reply and I agree with your sentiments.
Another election, another regime, perhaps. But this time the stakes are just too high. This regime *must* be removed from power for the good of the republic.
After that, we’ll see, but this is absolutely necessary, positively the primary mission in this election. To me this is a no-brainer. Others may disagree; however, I don’t cede them higher moral ground or higher principles.
Bye, troll !
So then take me up on my offer. Give Romney a chance. If he's just the same as Obama or worse, then I'll help you get Obama his second term in 2016.
Maybe I wasn't clear in my earlier response. Again - choosing between death by firing squad or electric chair, is NO CHOICE AT ALL.
There is only one real choice for true conservatives and patriots, and that is RESISTANCE. Figure out what that means to you, then do it with every molecule of your heart and soul.
What do you expect to be the outcome of your “resistance”? Who do you expect will be in the White House next year?
Does the “true conservative and patriot” have any responsibility for the outcome of his “resistance?”
Hi. It was TEAM Romney that threw Election 2008
That was TEAM ROMNEY - Legion of Backstabbers and Misogyists.
Not McCain. Romney. Romney the Lying Backstabber.