Posted on 10/11/2012 5:14:48 PM PDT by Lazamataz
It was obvious to me, and to all ConservativeKind, that Romney was an East Coast RINO, the sort of politician who we detest almost more than an "honest" liberal Democrat.
We were off-put by his Massachussettes record, we were enraged at his selection, and we vowed to fight him right up to the very second he was named the Republican candidate.
Yet, a few things happened recently that call into question our assumption:
In Miami, Romney said he reached out to Democrats to make deals -- most notably, the state health care plan, which he did not explicitly mention during Wednesday’s event.
"My legislature was 85 percent Democrat," he said. "It did not take a rocket scientist to realize I had to work with people across the aisle. I didn’t attack the senate president, I didn’t attack the speaker of the house, I had to work with them. I hope we have a Republican House and a Republican Senate and I get elected as president. But I will not ignore people across the aisle."
Color me skeptical about working with the enemy should we capture the House and Senate, but okay. I can see this in a man of honor.
So: Could it be? Could our wildest fantasies be realized? Could we have accidentally stumbled into a candidate that we fought tooth-and-nail, who is actually a conservative, or close to one?
It's worth gambling on. I have changed my vote from third party to Mitt Romney.
“Yes, I know I misspelled ‘Massachusetts’.”
Didn’t you know that they changed the spelling to “MACHUSETTS” when JFK was elected? ‘Cause the ASS went to Washington. (My uncle actually told that in the pulput once!)
I should have added my caveat from the last few days: if Romney lives up to his word in his first administration, then I’ll support him.
However, I want to see it first.
In the meantime, I prefer not to discuss his failings. I would much rather spend my time attacking Obama.
Reagan was willing to sign a bill overturning Roe v Wade with the very exceptions you are complaining about, and would have got it but the very same exception Romney calls for today became a stumbling block for purist pro-lifers. Reagan would have signed it, it would have become law, but purists stopped it.
Why is that different?
From what I am reading, you wouldn't vote for Reagan in 1980 if you had the same standards then. You know Reagan was true to his word only because he continued that way as president, not because of his record which was worse than Romney's. That you wouldn't give Romney the same chance to prove himself, when you KNOW what his opposition will do is simply foolishness.
Is this because Romney's a Mormon? Please answer straight because your logic isn't holding water.
Fwiw, the only attack that will be effective is to remove him from office. The only way you can do that is to vote for Romney.
If you allow this truly evil administration to stay in office you will be ashamed for the rest of your life (or should be).
A Mormon president is not an issue for me. I have spoken to this at many points since Romney’s first run for the presidency, so I repeat it here. I have no religious test for the president. (The reservation, of course, being that we are speaking of a reasonbable religions. I would not support a president who worships Ba’al or Appolyon.)
Lake, I don’t exaggerate about Reagan’s record, nor Romney’s.
Besides, with Reagan we are talking 1967 before the national conversation on this subject. We are also talking about a 3 network media in 1967 that we learned long afterwards contained radical liberals clandestinely pushing the nation to the destination at which we’ve now arrived.
The only group prepared to discuss abortion in 1967 was the Catholic Church and even it was caught flat-footed.
Roe v Wade hadn’t even happened yet, and at the time the exceptions mentioned all were incorporated under “health of the mother” which everyone parsed to “life of the mother”.
The Conscience of a Nation” represents Reagan’s mature understanding of abortion and life. I recall him braving an entirely hostile media AND “hip” culture with his arguement that we should err on the side of life if there’s doubt about the beginning of life. I even remember the gulping sound in his voice when he spoke those lines.
He was a brave man to tackle that head on the way he did.
The Obama administration is the most anti-Israel, anti-Christianity and pro-Islam I've ever known.
Thank you, Sister. I was concerned about presenting your position fairly.
Ro 8:28 is true consolation in the face of any missteps we might take in life. Thank you for responding.
Like all in house political debates, when the fighting stops and the smoke clears, we are still on the same side.
There is but two things that keep me in the Republican party, defense of the unborn, and marriage between a man and a woman.
The day the Republican establishment succeeds in removing those items from the platform, will be the day I forever become a voting Independent.
Other then being Pro-Life & the defense of traditional marriage, all else is meaningless. I say so, because the moment a person or party goes against God’s most vulnerable creatures, or his institution of marriage is the moment a Christian cannot support them any longer.
Christians cannot, and must not ever support abortion or gay marriage. If they do so, they are not a Christian. It’s as simple as that, because it all starts and ends with a heart for God’s commands.
That being said, if Romney does one thing to extend any help to the pro-choice crowd or to normalize same sex marriage in his administration, he is toast to me, and he should be for all Christians.
All else can be negotiated without going against God’s commands.
BTTT for Sunday crew.
The fact is, you know there is only one way to get rid of Bambi. The fact is clear, this administration is the most pro-death (and pro-everything you say you hate), destructive group ever, yet you pick at this as though somehow the two people are the same. They're not remotely the same.
Reagan was a great president, but when we first voted for him we didn't know how stalwart he would be, what a great warrior for all that is good and right. Just so you know, and this is a fact: In the 80's, he urged people to vote for a bill he said he would sign that included the exception of the health of the mother, then when the purists were winning on the GOP side, he chided them with his famous "Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good" speech.
I would suggest you could say "Don't let the fear of the unknown (and you do not know) get in the way of taking out the total evil you do know."
If you don't help take him out when you can, it will be hard to live down the evil he and his minions will perpetrate on us all.
Thank you for sharing your views, dear Lakeshark!
Please provide a link to that information. I've looked high and low and can't find it even mentioned anyplace at all.
I clearly remember when this happened because Reagan was my first vote ever for president, I was a newly minted pro-lifer (meaning the official cause) as well and I followed the news fairly regularly. It was so startling to me when the bill failed, I think it was the only time pro-life legislation could have been passed before or since and it was an attempt to overturn Roe V Wade.
I don't remember if his speech was exhorting pro-lifers to change their purist tactics or because he was so disappointed that they had already failed in doing so.
Lake, I’ve respected the way you’ve been fair with me in our conversations. I have every reason to give you the benefit of the doubt. At the same time, the same venerable gentleman, iirc, said: “Trust...but verify.”
To repeat, I’m not particularly interested in tearing down Romney at this point. I no longer see a 2-front war as viable. Therefore, I’m concentrating my fire on the Obama front.
I have no regrets beyond what could have been.
In twenty-twenty hindsight none of the conservative candidates could break out from the others, and unfortunately it was Romney who waltzed in and benefited as the conservative circular firing squad kept up its rounds. "We have met the enemy and it is us."
It is what it is, we have a candidate we don't particularly trust. He is trying to unseat what I consider to be the most evil and destructive administration of our lives, and for that reason alone I fall in line. More often than not I have been pleasantly surprised by Romney's campaign pronouncements, but it will take a track record in office for them to gain my trust.
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear Lakeshark!
I just keep on imagining the announcement no more Bama.
and the cheering that follows!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.