Skip to comments.In Case You Don't Like Romney... A Challenge To Every FReeper
Posted on 06/13/2012 2:03:43 PM PDT by MindBender26
In Case You Don't Like Romney...
Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election
If Romney wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who may have hesitation on that score, Id just ask you to keep four things in mind:
1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago and has had cancer twice.
Whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
If you dont think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think youre smokin something funky .
So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didnt get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can't win ... just imagine this possibility:
'SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER'
Did that get your attention!
A valiant effort, but probably wasted.
I well remember the Conservatives who proclaimed McCain “not conservative enough” who asked
“Why not just let Obama get elected? After all, how much harm could he do in four years?”
Now we know !
I was one of them. Well, almost. I knew that Obama was horrible but I also believed that McCain wouldn’t be much better. Sarah was the only reason that I voted for McCain at all. I did count on Obama being bad enough to wake people up. He has. I just hope that it is enough that have woken.
BTW, Mitt’s tepid response today already has me regretting that I even think voting for him is acceptable. What it comes down to for me is that no matter how bad Romney is or might be, we cannot allow Obama to remain in office. We must not allow him the opportunity to finish the destruction that he set on finishing when he doesn’t have to worry about reelection.
I haven’t read the entire thread so I don’t know how it all went but you certainly sparked a conversation. Thanks.
Of course not!
But, I can tell you the names of some teams that won't make it.
It's difficult to pick winners, but it's easy to pick some of the losers.
And, I know that you are willing to go with a loser!
Romney has not changed on the abortion issue. The truth is that he has changed multiple times on the abortion issue. The truth also is that he has ALWAYS governed using pro-abortion decisions.
The appearance is one of campaign expediency as one goes through his record. His changes came about when it was expedient for him to have a change.
Reagan was nothing like that. His book/essay “ “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation” is full-blown anti-abortionism. He never wavered in his beliefs, even though in his time the pro-abortion sentiment in the media was near universal.
Romney says he has changed. I can understand doubting his word, I certainly do. But from a political standpoint I think there is a reasonable chance he will try to back up his words with actions. I’m especially hopeful of this concerning potential supreme court pick(s). I wouldn’t bet the ranch on it, but I would bet the ranch on what we get from Obama. Consequently I do believe there is a good chance less babies will die from abortions if Romney is elected. That makes my vote for him important....I would like to ask a former Chaplain how you KNOW he has not changed?
Norm's post is not Realville, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of how bad Bambi is. There are two candidates left who can win, Virgil and whatshisname aren't one of them.
One of those candidates is insufferable, unthinkable and inconceivably set on a course to ruin this country with his Marxist psychobabble.
The other is a RINO squish who we don't like for good reason.
I don't like Mitt, but the alternative is unthinkable. And no, he can't be contained, because he's lawless (like yesterday's edict concerning illegals), has no regard for what people want, or what's good, and will never take no for an answer. Heck, he could be caught murdering Hillary on live tv and the networks would say it's Bush's fault for being so divisive (a little humor for you in Rio Linda).
I'm sorry, we either boot Bambi and his minions to the curb or we might never get it back.
Trying to defeat Romney now won't help. Exaggerating how bad Romney is won't help, pretending he's the same as Bambi won't help. Getting rid of Bambi's minions gives us a chance.
Obama is one part of the larger problem. The fact that congress and the Supremes allowed their power to be usurped is the reall problem. Obama could have been stopped anywhere along the way and still could. But congress refused to do so. As do the Supremes (Diana Rooss notwithstanding ;).
In all seriousness however, The congress they will not reel in someone like Obama will surely give a free hand to ‘one of their own. You still believe that Romney is incapable of simmilar actions when his record is crystal clear that he is. You have also not addressed that Obama’s pre election history was one of nothing. His senate/state career was as hollow as a beach ball. But Romney’s was not. He has a head start and has repeatedly shown the desire to ignore his voters and legislate to appease special interests/donors.
To put such man in power with a castrated congress and thinking he will somehow magically repent of his prior governance is a fantasy, Lake. But he will win. And we are all going to discover which of us is right.
Just how many politicos of Romney’s stripe, throughout history, need to turn dictator before you see a pattern? But moreso, until we have a congress willing to do their jobs, it really doesn’t matter who is elected. Because they’re all/will be kings at this point.
He has changed multiple times. That’s all I really need to know. Expediency is his way of doing business.
And, since his decisions when in power have always been pro-abortion, then any current “change” is simply to be overlooked by those who desire to protect life.
You are guessing what Romney will do, but you don't know. You are claiming they are the same which is fatuous nonsense.
I don't like our position but it has to be as follows:
1. Get rid of the scourge and his minions (only one way to do that, Jack).
2. Elect as many conservatives to congress, and help the GOP take the senate.
3. Work like hell to keep their feet to the fire and hope we can survive another four years.
Romney’s evolution on abortion:
(Notice the 2012 position, he is not pro-life)
Romney said I am not comfortable with my status on abortion and want to be called pro-life. (2012)
Romney’s government health care provides $50 to free abortions. (current)
Romney appointed pro-choice judges to his court, they are still serving. (current)
Romney said Roe v Wade should be overturned and left to the states, so that makes me pro-life. (2011)
Romney supports stem cell research. (2004)
Romney said abortion should be kept legal, safe and rare and will honor that commitment. (2002)
Romney said I am committed to preserving abortions rights. (2002)
Romney whether you are for abortion or not is relevant, the individual should decide. (1999)
Romney said is a debate with Kennedy that he was more pro-choice than Kennedy. (1994)
Romney was applauded by plan parenthood for his pro-abortion stand. (1994)
“You are guessing what Romney will do, but you don’t know. You are claiming they are the same which is fatuous nonsense.”
I ‘claimed’ they were ‘as bad in different ways’. That’s a significant difference.
I admitted Romney will win lake. I’m not voting for him, but I have no doubt at this point he’ll win. He will oust Obama. I’m just worried about what hell he’ll unleash instead of the hell Obama has.
And BTW, just to bring this into crystal clarity, ‘m basing my speculation on the cold hard -FACT- of his record. You are -GUESSING- that he’ll go 180 and be the opposite president that he was a Governor.
Now based solely on statistical probability, with no emotion involved, which of us do you think will end up right?
Excellent list, svcw. Thanks.
It gives detail to what I was saying. Romney is a windvane on the issue of life. Whichever way his best interests lie at the moment is the direction he turns.
Romney says he will get rid of planned parenthood and Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Don’t you think there’s at least a chance he will back that up with actions if elected?
I think his goal all along has been the presidency. Once attained, again, there’s at least a chance he’ll try to live by the words that got him there. As a political animal it’s the only thing that makes sense, whether or not he believes those words. And that will saves lives.
We know for a fact what will happen with abortion if Obama is re-elected. And supreme court pick(s) will only solidify his radical views resulting in more abortions for years and years to come.
This is really the ultimate case of cutting off your nose to spite your face. We all take your view, there’s an Obama landslide. Think he’s bad now? Wait till he has a solid majority in the supreme court that creates laws essentially giving him free reign to run the country based on the mandate given him with said landslide victory. You really think he’ll care about all the third party votes? Please think about what reality is, not what you want it to be.
Sure! There's always a chance! Just like there's a chance of hitting it big on these things!
“Dont you think theres at least a chance he will back that up with actions if elected?”
Try this question instead:
“Dont you think theres at least a chance, BASED ON HIS PAST RECORD he will back that up with actions if elected?”
Either way? No, I don’t. Nor do I think if I pray really really hard that the Blue Fairy will come and make me a real boy.
What are the odds Obama will get rid of Planned Parenthood?
Better to ask yourself: what are the odds Planned Parenthood will be gotten rid of...period. It's now embraced by the Girl Scouts, by the Susan G Komen foundation, by numerous groups. The culture is changing around you, bramps - for the worse. Better to not put all your hopes and dreams in a smooth talking, lying former MA governor with slick promises and good hair.
I love that Romney just announces “call me pro-life”, sorry that does not make you pro-life. I mean I could announce I am 5’8” it will not make it so.
Hey, you want to be on the BBQ list?
Hey, I'll bring the Stubbs!
To put such man in power with a castrated congress and thinking he will somehow magically repent of his prior governance is a fantasy, Lake. But he will win. And we are all going to discover which of us is right.
Yes, and I suspect that by that time, we will all sadly be in agreement about Romney.
Romney said: “Of course you get rid of Obamacare, that’s the easy one, but there are others,” he said. “Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that.”
Romney’s spokesman Fehrnstrom said: “It would not be getting rid of the organization,” “We’re going to have to make some tough decisions about spending. The test that Mitt Romney will apply is, is this program so worthwhile and valuable that we’ll borrow money from China to [fund] it?”
Romney said: “You get rid of Obamacare, but there are others,” Romney the station. “Planned Parenthood, we’re gonna get rid of that.”
Romney’s chief adviser Gillespie: said: My point — look, people can disagree with that, but it’s not fair to say not having federal funding for Planned Parenthood is defunding Planned Parenthood.
So bramps, are you sure?
But, but, he says he's SEVERELY CONSERVATIVE! < / MittWitt off >
As soon as the GOP adopted the divide/conquer strategy of the Dems, the outcome was cast in stone.
This is classic stuff. Start at zero. Push to 50 with Prez 1. Go back to 25 with Prez 2. Net ‘gain’ 25. Prez 3 takes it to 75. Prex 4 back to 50. Net gain 50. And so forth.
We MUST vote for the even #s or we are called tratiors and crazy because look at the great things they do in rolling back the insanity of the dems!!!
This is incrementalism and most are blind to it. It’s SOP for local/state/feds. It’s SOP for greens. Communists, and every other org working on the principles of social engineering and ‘change.’
People think that Romney is going to ‘at least undo a lot of the Obama stuff’. Right there they have already accepted that he won’t undo it all and adopted the ‘better some than none’ mindset. So next time, they will accept a little more...and neat more...
I marvel at the lack of critical thought displayed by OBOs. They are cutting their own throats and happy to do so.
Romney is simply slicker and smarter than Obama. Those who are “OBO” seem to ignore that one of the most potentially destructive pieces of legislation in our country’s history, “Obamacare”, was modeled after “Romneycare”.
What frustrate me more than anything is people clinging like a Bokun to a VooDoo totem to the “He’s not Obama”. Well NFS Sherlock. Ever stop and think about what he IS???
The level of Self deception RE Romney/Obamacare is staggering. As is the “He said he’s XXXX”. Since did what someone says overrule what they actually do?
Would any of the ABO types (I typoed ;) for a nanosecond hire a pedo to watch their kids because he ‘said’ he’s not that way anymore? I doubt it.
Would they hire a bank robber.forger to run their cash register after he said he’s honest now? I doubt it.
But those very same people are saying that we should support the grandfather of Obamacare because he said he’ll kill off his grandson. How freaking mindless is that ‘logic’?
I am losing more faith by the day in the supposed ‘intelligence’ of conservatives. Because I am not seeing much of it displayed. They ignore logic, history and demonstrated fact and instead, embrace magical thinking where none of that enters the decision process.
And “WE” are the problem....
Sorry, bramps, my faith makes it impossible for me to go there.
Just in the last 2 months Romney has come out in support in gay couples, and not only that, he thinks that at the state level they should be able to adopt children. Moreover, just at the turn of the year he came out favoring gays in the military saying he’ll do nothing to change that.
So far as politicians and their promises, there’s no way he’ll be in the position to either end planned parenthood or overturn roe v wade. You are talking a majority republican senate with no rinos. That won’t happen, he knows it, and so simply to appear conservative he made those statements during the primary. He is already drifting left for the general election, and yesterday was unwilling to back up his earlier tough talk on immigration.
Do you remember when he excoriated Rick Perry for saying essentially what Obama said yesterday? Not now. Now he wants to drift left.
So, he has a pro-abortion record, and he has recently endorsed the homosexual agenda. Either of those mean I have to choose between Romney/Obama or my God. Let God be true and every man a liar.
I will be among the remnant that votes for a conservative in this race.
Supreme Court justices retire when a president to their liking is in power. I’m surprised that Ginsberg hasn’t retired. In other words, she doesn’t fear Romney either.
Scalia won’t retire with a liberal president in power, and definitely not if it’s Obama.
Your justice talk, though, should make you livid with republicans over the McCain fiasco. They ran a loser knowing that Scotus was on the verge of tipping conservative with just one more appointment. Their answer was to (intentionally?) run a loser.
That’s because the GOP-E is liberal and always has been. Romney’s record of judicial appointments, btw, is pro-abortion selections.
These people are not conservative. Take the one in this thread, for instance. She said she isn't opposed to gay marriage and would support it. See post# 948 in this thread. That screams liberal.
Please add me to the bbq list. I like my rips smoked, btw. :>)
Someone said they would bring STUBBS, can’t remember who but thanks!!!!
Absolutely true. But none dare call it what it is. Or few of us. Because they don’t want to ‘offend’ their online FRiends. Sure smells a lot like the way libs operate to me.
As long as they can say he's "not Obama", the Republican Party can throw leftists at us, and sadly, far too many good-natured conservatives fall for it. Frightened by what they see, they turn to the latest GOP-E Blue Fairy to rescue them. And every four years, our nation continues its descent away from liberty to velvet-gloved tyranny. The DemocRATs want pedal-to-the-metal; rather than throwing it into reverse, the GOP establishment wants it forward just a little bit slower.
Romney is the latest Blue Fairy - "he's not Obama!".
It’s a private organization. He can’t get rid of it. But he can go a long way to stopping them from receiving federal funds used. With Obama, no chance of that. And that’s just for starters. Imagine Obama unleashed with another one or two supreme court picks. I’d joke that he be especially dangerous because he knows it’s his last term. But I’m not sure that wouldn’t change if he’s re-elected. Please wake me when this nightmare disguised as a thread is over.
And WE are the problem....
They're terrified, for which I have sympathy, but ignoring Romney's history isn't going to make it go away. I remember talking to an older, liberal woman about Obama in 2008, shortly after the election. I asked her how she could have voted for him, given what he had promised to do. "Oh", she said merrily, "he didn't really MEAN that!".
With Romney, we have a history. A history that doesn't support what he claims to believe, that doesn't support what he claims to be.
It’s really no different than muslim apologists that don’t believe they ‘really’ want to kill infidels or that they don’t ‘really’ mean Jews are pigs when they say it in clear, unclouded terms. Then are shocked at terrorism and antisemitism.
And now an ABO will get into a tizzy because I made that comparison. Well? It’s the same ‘logic’ so why shouldn’t I? I’m not particularly concerned with soothing their consciences or making them feel good about their decision. They might not like it but the truth often is not plesant to hear...when it’s not on your side.
You said this: (post 1015) Romney says he will get rid of planned parenthood.
That is what I was replying to, your statement.
Given the information I provided to you, I will ask again - are you sure?
Good luck with that. Trying to reason with bramps is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
Did you read my post #1034? I’m actually sure he won’t get rid of it. He can’t. I’d be fairly sure he said he’d get ‘rid of it’ because it sounded like tough political talk. But I think he will try to stop them from getting federal funds. Why wouldn’t he? No fan of planned parenthood is ever going to vote for any republican over a democrat anyway. Romney will rationalize that he gets more votes by opposing them by backing up his words by cutting funding. Am I certain of my conclusion? No. Am I certain what Obama will do? Yes.
Don't ever think that you know what Obummer will do. He comes up with the most despicable ways to destroy our Constitution every day! And every day, I think he can't get any worse - and he DOES!
I am SO disappointed in Congress! I was so sure that when the Republicans took control, they would at least try to stop him. Their silence is deafening!
I posted what you said in a specific post, and said that was what I was responding to with the information provided and now you want to talk about a different post trying to rationalize your view that Romney will do what you want, totally disregarding everything he has said.
There is a reason I quoted you and put the post number in my reply, however you have learned to attempt to deflect quite well.
Liberals are quite good at that. Catch them in an inconsistency and they change the subject.
I think you both need reading lessons and I’m certain you both are more interested in pi$$ing contests rather than accomplishing anything productive. My posts are very clear and consistent if you bother to carefully read them. Just think how thrilled Obama would be if he read your posts. Continued luck in doing his bidding, unintentional as it may be.
I think we got his attention.
While it is true that every persons vote is an expression of their principles, it does not follow that those principles are necessarily conservative principles or Christian principles.
It is not possible to vote for Romney and be voting for conservative principles or Christian principles.
I would call that classic situationism for those who had formerly guided themselves by their Christian or conservative principles.
Xzins is absolutely right, here. Let's face it - BB and others can dress up their support for Romney all they want, but the fact remains that Romney is a progressive leftist. When we look at the sum total of his record, this fact becomes undeniable. It's not a "straw man" or a "caricature," it is a fact. Up until the point where Romney decided to run for President in the GOP primary - a decision he made sometime in early-to-mid 2007 - he was a leftist, even on things and at times when he did not "need" to be because of the "necessities" of being the governour of a state like Massachusetts. Face it - until 2007, Romney was a liberal. His decision-making, and the general results of his time in offce, were virtually indistinguishable from your standard left-wing Democrat.
What I find very telling is that for all the hee-hawing at me about how horrible I am for pointing out Romney's record by BB, Agamemnon, and the (if we're honest here) small contingent of the really committed pro-Romney people on here, the fact remains that they have not really ever been able to answer the points I've made about his record. Simply pointing fingers at me and accusing me of being anti-Mormon or of being a closet Obama supporter is not the same thing as making a reasoned defence of their candidate by actually refuting the arguments I make. Even in the few cases where the attempt has been made, the person arguing with me has been arguing with a straw man of what I said, and when forced to deal with what I was actually saying, have gone strangely silent.
The reason for this, of course, is that supporting Romney is simply indefensible for anyone claiming to be a conservative or a Christian. I am not saying that the people doing so are not conservatives and/or Christian, but that they are engaging in something that runs counter to the profession and principles that they believe themselves to hold.
It's one thing to be someone who sees no hope in a third party, and resigns themselves to taking the bitter pill and "having" to vote for Romney because "there's no other alternative." It's quite another to actively stump for the guy and to do so by basically ignoring everything he did and said prior to 2007 while spouting obvious nonsense like "Romney is pro-life" or "Romney doesn't believe in global warming."
Let's face it - for all his other faults, Romney IS cunning. He IS a political animal. He knows that there's no way he could win in the primaries if he campaigned as a liberal, hence his sudden "conversion" on a number of issues coinciding with his decision to run in the GOP primaries. He's smart enough to understand that Rudy Giuliani's approach of unabashed campaigning on leftist principles will get you about nowhere in the GOP primaries.
But all of you who actually believe that he's now the second coming of Ronald Reagan are being taken for saps. You're buying beachfront in Nebraska. You're all lucky that your telephone numbers are on the telemarketer do-not-call list, otherwise you'd be flat broke by next Wednesday.
Seriously people, a candidate's campaign can write whever it wants on its website, and a candidate can say whatever he thinks he has to in a speech. These don't really mean anything. None of it precludes Romney shaking the Etch-a-Sketch once again once he doesn't need to pander to conservatives anymore. Really, supporting Romney is like a hiring manager choosing to seriously consider a candidate for employment who is obviously lying on his resumé.
And don't bother trying to make the argument with me that "we can't really know what's in his heart." True. but give us enough credit for a little blithering common sense to be able to figure out when somebody's trying to sell us a bill of goods, okay?
It's really sad - over the past month, I've seen people who I *know* wuld otherwise stand for things like objective truth and non-situation morals suddenly turning around and make arguments that people who are actually standing on principles are the bad guys - not just that maybe we're wrong about something, but that we're just psychologically defective because we refuse to jump on board the Romney bandwagon. Sorry boys and girls, but I reject those arguments. I reject your attempts to turn it back around and to make it look like situational, pragmatic, whatever-it-takes-to-win-the-election-for-the-guy-with-the-R-after-his-name shifting sand "principles" you're espousing are the "true" principled position. It's not, and it never will be, no matter how much you pat yourselves on the back and try to fast-talk your way around the facts.
Wow. Your post is a keeper!
All I know is that I have no intent of being among the “we” when they realize they’ve been duped.
They can cheer for every big money left wing influence peddler to switch from Obama to Romney but they shouldn’t feign surprise when that same influence is peddled to Romney.
Yash, I can only disagree with this point. I will say they are not conservative or christian for the obvious reasons that one cannot do something contrary to the very core of conservatism and christianity respectively, and still logically claim to be those things.
If a person drinks a case of beer a day, they can’t claim with a straight face they are sober.
If a man has sex with other men, he can’t claim to be hetrosexual.
And if a person votes for a man with Romney’s liberal record, they cannot be either conservative or christian. They can claim it until pigs dance the macarena. But they are only lying to themselves and others.
When Pelosi goes out and praises Planned Barenhood and then spews her catholocism, should we believe her to be a devoutcatholic? Nope.That would be stupid. Same for these ABOs.
That’s an excellent point. Someone willing to vote for Romney and claiming to be a serious conservative is like Nancy Pelosi claiming to be a devout Catholic.