Skip to comments.Mitt Romney's opposition to gay marriage unites base
Posted on 05/10/2012 7:02:36 PM PDT by icwhatudo
Social conservatives who doubted Mitt Romney now have a reason to rally around him after President Obamas embrace of gay marriage.
Despite the fact that very conservative and religious voters didnt support Romney in the primary, their fierce opposition to the issue will give the presumptive GOP nominee a way to harness conservative enthusiasm in November.
President Obama just evolved himself into a one-term president, said Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage. This is a disaster for the Democratic Party: the reality is that the exact states he needs to win are the states that have overwhelmingly passed legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
President Obama, now that he can be sure he won't face effective opposition on the homosexual issue from the Republican Party (i.e., Gingrich or Santorum) has apparently decided to make his own base voters happy.
In other words, he's aggressively shoring up his left-wing militant base voters who will be the core of his re-election campaign.
Why do I have to admit the Democrats are doing things right and we aren't? This is a pattern of shoring up the base that the Republican Party should have been following, and painting the Democrats as out of touch with most Americans to the right of San Francisco (which is almost everyone). Now we have two candidates, one openly pro-homosexual and the other with a track record of compromising on homosexuality, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of American voters ***OPPOSE HOMOSEXUALITY!!!!!***
This should have been a winning issue for Republicans and we're losing for no good reason at all.
That's funny. Tell me another one.
No, you want to read up on it. the MA supreme court told the LEGISLATURE that the MUST go back to the drawing board and come up with a gay marriage proposal.
Even though the MA legislature is extremely liberal, they refused to act.
Then Bishop Romney did it, all on his own. He issued a proclamation that gay marriage was the new law of the state, and that any marriage clerk who refused to do gay marriages would be removed from his job.
In other words, as I said, Romney did it single handedly, by proclamation. No law was ever passed, as the court asked.
That was a first. The first state to have gay marriage. And Romney did it, all by his little self. Just like Obama, who also likes to do these things himself, without congressional consent or approval.
Sounds like the 1980 Democratic Party primary in which conservative Southern Democratic voters had to decide whether to vote for Jimmy Carter or Teddy Kennedy. One guy has a decent moral life but a bunch of bad positions on issues, and the other guy is a left-wing radical whose positions were much worse.
Unfortunately, there's no Ronald Reagan out there to whom we can jump ship out of frustration this fall with a realistic expectation of victory. We can either cast a protest vote for the Constitution Party hoping they'll become viable later, and thereby guarantee Obama's re-election, or vote for the lesser of two evils.
Not true. Cite sources.
He "fought" it enough to maintain plausible deniability for his GOP presidential run. See Mass. Resistance, Timeline Documents Romney's Role in Creating Same-Sex "Marriages".
Civil unions != gay marriage.
And as for a story by the Boston Globe, consider the source.
Jim, please step in here. I don't want to see anyone on this thread zotted or any posts pulled. (In fact, I want to see the posts stay up as evidence of what **NOT** to say.) However, I do think now that you've decided to tolerate Romney supporters, something needs to be said about how far they can go. The reality is that most Republicans are going to vote for Romney this fall and I don't object to tolerating Romney supporters, but surely toleration has limits.
I have no problem with WOSG doing fact-checking of accusations against Mitt Romney since nobody is helped by circulating false claims about him, but I do have a real problem with the direction this thread is going. Does tolerating people who are now Romney supporters mean we have to tolerate it when long-term Freepers who oppose Romney get asked whether they have been paid by Obama to oppose Romney?
WOSG, Xzins, you've both been here a long time. In fact, both of you have been here longer than me. Surely you both know each other well enough to know that neither of you are Obama supporters — especially someone from the Class of 1998 like Xzins.
I share the objections of Xzins and many other people here to Romney, and I believe Romney is virtually the worst possible Republican candidate. I frankly don't know what I'm going to do this fall, but I am not going to question whether people like Xzins, who have a long track record on Free Republic, have been bribed by Democrats.
Let's calm down and think rationally. Xzins is a retired Army chaplain. He's been a Freeper almost since the site started. He's been posting for years now opposing both Romney and Obama. He decided to support the Constitution Party several months ago and that is not a new development. Is it even remotely possible that Obama paid him to sign up on Free Republic in 1998 so he could bash Romney and help Obama get re-elected?
I know many of us are upset — I am, too — but we need to focus on our enemy and figure out how to deal with a very bad hand of cards we've been dealt. I do not see the Constitution Party as a viable option for now, but I am not going to throw stones or raise bribery questions about people who decide they can't vote for Romney in good conscience.
Thank you for your rational words, darrell.
To accuse me of being paid by Obama or of being an agent of Obama BECAUSE I oppose Romney is an illogical step given my track record of opposition to Romney for years and years, verifiable in the RomneyTruthFile.
But to accuse me, due to non-support of Romney, is also to accuse countless other long-time Freepers, not the least of whom is the founder of the site.
I tend to ignore personal attacks. They roll off my back anymore. However, in the religion forum they enforce the “no personal attacks” rule to keep noise to a minimum.
Since we are at truce, that same rule regarding support or non-support of Romney makes perfect sense. Thank you for an excellent suggestion.
Something seriously wrong with anyone who would accuse xzins (or any other pro-life, pro-family, pro-small government conservative) of being paid by Obama. Conservatives object to Romney for his actual liberal/progressive record while in government and it’s much the same as Obama’s. But especially wrong accusing a retired army Chaplain who’s been a loyal member of FR since nearly the beginning of time.
Account # 3014
Messages 1648 articles, 71170 replies
This retired Army Chaplain says:
“And here’s to you, Mr Robinson, Jesus loves you more than you can know.”
I appreciate your kind words.
Mitt desperately needs an attack dog as his V.P. Newt is the ideal candidate.
Because homosexuals are probably per capita by far the wealthiest part of Obama’s base and they were threatening not to donate. Obama still tried to straddle the fence, saying he’s for gay marriage but not proposing any legislation or executive order for it. That part of his message went unheard though. We would know better, but the unwashed masses might have bought it like many bought the “compromise” on birth control. But the media was too overjoyed with his declaration to parse his words at all that way. Obviously he knew it was a risky move that he could straddle the fence, but he needed that money, including from his big Hollywood pot luck the very next day.
Obama was genuinely scared Romney would peel off wealthy gay votes for the Republicans, which is the stealth plan Romney and the RNC had in mind the whole time. So Obama had to shore up that part of his base by moving further left on gay issues. That’s how it works, nominate Republicans who lean left which forces the Democrats to go even further left which gradually shifts the whole country left until we have no more country left.
Obama’s essentially undermining the whole rationale for the Romney candidacy in the mind of the RNC. Any left-of-centers Romney was going to peel off will be pulled back as Obama moves further left on every issue to distinguish himself from the Massachusetts Moderate. However, Obama’s problem is that this might actually galvanize the conservative base for Romney, something Romney could never achieve on his own. The net result is the same though, every single vote is now for a platform that is further left than it was 4 years ago.
Let me say up front that I apologize to xzins for making the ‘paid poster’ accusation. It was wrong, I frankly didnt even mean it, it was said out of frustration to repeated statements I dont think are true. Its to his credit that he ignored it, we’ve argued but he’s never been out-of-bounds w/ me, so he didnt deserve it.
I too have been called a bunch of names over the years for being on the ‘wrong’ side of an FR argument(*), and invariably they are off-base and wrong. The most ironic one is the accusation that I’m a Romney supporter, as I’ve defended Romney from various false allegations (mormon stuff, his record), and hyperbolic attacks (calling him a socialest etc). Well, I’ll be certainly voting for him in the fall, but he wasnt my pick this time or in 2008, and I understand his weaknesses.
But he’s the GOP pick, like it or not, and there are many like me in the Republican party who are more conservative than Romney but understand that he will at least sign some conservative bills and do some good things, whereas with Obama it will be 100% opposite to what we want. I think continued attacks on Romney do *not* help the conservative cause at this time, but only help re-elect Obama, which in my estimation would be a catastrophic thing to befall the country *and* conservatives.
If that opinion is not welcome on FR, then it wasnt the site I once knew.
Thank you also, WOSG. We've all said things we regret.
Thirdly, thanks to Xzins for your participation here. As we've discussed before, I don't agree with you on the Constitution Party for now, but I'm quite aware of how bad things once were a few decades ago in the Republican Party, and if things go seriously wrong, there may be a lot more people running for the exits and hunting for a place to land. The Constitution Party may be the logical choice for social conservatives if the Republican Party decides it doesn't want us.
I generally check people's posting history before saying something negative, and since I read much more than I post, often I know regular posters by their comments. In this case, WOSG, I was aware of your Wednesday post to several people (including Xzins) in which you said “Would have been Newt for me, and might still be (in Texas) just to show conservative colors.” I understand that in your case you are a Romney supporter by default, i.e., a legitimate “anybody but Obama” guy, rather than a Romney supporter because you think he's the best candidate.
The problem is that Jim Robinson's truce inevitably will open the floodgates not only to people who back Mitt Romney because he's “anybody but Obama” but also to people who support Romney for reasons that are incompatible with the stated purpose of Free Republic.
I don't see any way around that. Barring “anybody but Obama” supporters of Mitt Romney means Free Republic risks being marginalized, being irrelevant, or possibly being gone entirely. On the other hand, the unavoidable consequence is letting people talk who at least covertly want to push an agenda to make the Republican Party much more liberal than it is today.
I believe it is those people, not people like Xzins, who are the ones who need to be watched. It's those people, not long-term solid conservative Freepers, whose motives need to be questioned because in some cases they may be paid disruptors.
We've got a terrible mess on our hands this election on the presidential level. My hope is that we avoid the conservative circular firing squad so enough of a conservative movement is left after this election to pick up the pieces. Of the two candidates still in the Romney-Obama race, whoever wins this fall will be one of the three most liberal candidates who ran this year (the third being Huntsman).
That does not bode well for the future of America.
“At least Obama didnt go around and beat up gay kids. He WAS the gay kid.”
Actually, Obama, the high school dope smoker, bullied a girl in high school and wrote about it in his autobiography ... stuff, like the dog eating, the media wont dare mention while they dig up 40 year old stuff on Republicans.
Is that you, Mitt?
Apology fully expected, and I understand your frustration. FWIW, I don’t think someone saying “the logical result of supporting a 3rd party is to take votes away from Romney, therefore, that weakens him and is to Obama’s advantage.”
I understand that logic. I don’t think there’s anything flawed in it NO MATTER what the other person’s reasons for supporting a 3rd party might be.
HOWEVER, there are valid, integritous reasons for supporting a 3rd party. Those people can legitimately argue, “I am striving for another objective, so it is not TRUE in our case that we are supporting Obama.”
My intent is to: (1) Strive for the creation of a legitimate home for conservatives, (2) To demonstrate to the former home for this conservative a number that could have belonged to them if they would not have left conservative principles entirely, and (3) to prevent a victory that would irrevocably turn the republican party into another liberal party.
One can argue with my rationale, but I know I don’t support Obama, and my track record says I don’t support Obama, so there can be no argument with my integrity.
That would be a personal attack based on whimsy and not on the facts in evidence.
I sort of thought Obama wanted to galvanize the conservative base for Romney -- at least until the convention. I'm sure the Dems fear a brokered GOP convention as much as many FReepers are hoping against hope for it. This would explain the WP's weird "attack" on the high school Romney -- all us so-cons are truly Neanderthal homophobes, so this story will reassure us about Romney.
Notice Obama's not bringing out any of the big guns against Romney, just enough little ones to look as if they're fighting when they're not really, not yet.
I think this is related to why the recent abortive florescence of OWS was so brief -- they're jumping the gun and were told to hold off until after the GOP convention, when it will fit beautifully with Obama's presentation of Romney's Bain record!
All this JMHO, of course! ;-)
"Had a different opinion but did not criticize."
Offering a different opinion is criticizing. He should have stopped after saying he supported the Boy Scouts right to decide. He can't have it both ways by saying they have the right to decide but they ought to decide x.
We don't need a politician that speaks out of both sides of his mouth. And regardless, Romney's opinion clearly indicates that he doesn't recognize the danger of having homosexuals participate in boy scout leadership positions. Nor does he recognize the Boy Scouts traditional recognization of God and God's laws which forbid homosexuality.
He obeyed a court order, on the last possible day.
Not true according to these articles. He not only did not have a legal obligation, what he did was illegal.
"Although he had no legal obligation, and many legal scholars informed him that it was both illegal and unconstitutional to do so, Romney began handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In fact, he ordered justices of the peace in the state to comply or be fired. " The Mitt split
Cook County Democrats rarely do something unwittingly. They get caught, but their god is Machiavelli. Somethings up with this and we don’t get it yet. There’s some long game here. It perhaps might not even be Obama’s end game, but some other powers.
Disgusting and can someone explain to me why 2-3% of the population is holding the rest of us hostage? Just how gay are our leaders?
All the more reason to elect the most conservatives to Congress we can.