Posted on 08/07/2009 7:10:59 AM PDT by Seth_Stuck
Someone sent this video to me as a means to saying Romney isn't a "real conservative." I'm curious to see if any of you agree with this analysis, and why. Please post your thoughts directly on the blog in response to this post.
I will add my comments in a later post...
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativebrawler.blogspot.com ...
Do you live in Massachusetts, or did you ever.
If the answer is no, then your comment above is ridiculous.
Take your idiotic red herring comments and shove ‘em up your RINO rear-end, boy. I’ve known Slick Willard for 15 years, since his first campaign (for which I was there in MA for in the fall of ‘94). He’s the biggest fraud and con-artist claiming to be a Republican I’ve ever come across, and a complete destructive menace to not only the party, but the Conservative cause. The fact you Slick Willardbot trolls are still allowed to pollute this website with your lies, your filth, and your personal attacks is sickening. You want to promote Socialism ? Go on over to DU, Huffinglue Post, KOSKids, or the litany of other moonbat websites. Go sell crazy somewhere else.
bump
Again, there are Millions of conservatives who do not frequent (nor have they ever visited) FR. The fact that there have been other threads, however extensive, discussing Romney’s political lean is totally irrelevant 1) Because this is a conversation about the specific comments he made in the 1994 debate 2) just because it’s been mentioned on FR doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be mentioned elsewhere. If YOU had done a “little research” you’d know that questioning my conservatism, my dedication or my ability is ridiculous. If YOU were a credible conservative, YOU would know better. Give the ad hominem attacks a rest. They clearly aren’t valid.
oops...
I love it...
It’s because you’ve only been registered at FR since February. You might want to pipe down just a wee bit, especially since you technically were pimping your blog.
Biggest "sin" is assuming every has time to or even wants to peruse every thing on the net about himself instead of coming out and stating a position...
But it fell on deaf ears...
I tried to help...
At least *I* was registered for over a year and a half before I started bashing McCain like there was no tomorrow.
Even then, I’m still a newbie compared to most Freepers, who have been here five, six, seven, or more years.
ABORTION
Romney has become more conservative on this issue as the science has become stronger towards the pro-life side. He came to his stance in 1994 based upon his personal family experiences, and has since been exposed to more of the realities involved in abortion. His main points in this debate were 1) not wanting to impose his ideals on others; and 2) abiding by the laws of the country - cornerstones of our Republic. We are a nation of laws (a republic, not a democracy) and, regardless of how you feel, they must be obeyed and respected. Legislation can change them if need be, but until that occurs, they must be followed.
GAY RIGHTS
Gay rights in the 90s wasn't so much about gay marriage like it is today (of which Romney does not support). It was a fight for equality as human beings - a civil rights issue, and one that he was able to identify with early on. Someone's sexuality does not affect their worth as a person, and that's what he was supporting. There wasn't any conflict between supporting the Boy Scouts and supporting gay rights because he defers to one of the same cornerstones as mentioned in his abortion response - the non-imposition of his views on others. The boy scouts are not any different as far as their membership requirements than most churches - he states his personal beliefs on the issues (inclusion of all regardless of sexual orientation), but defers to the Boy Scouts for making their own decisions in their operations without government involvement. He states that he will fight for gay rights, which once has commenced, would carry over into the Boy Scouts. Until there is a legal obligation for the Boy Scouts to change their policy, Romney defers to the law and respects their decision that they've made for their organization.
REAGAN
I have to review the rest of the debate. I've seen it before, and his Reagan comment didn't raise any red flags for me then so...I think there's some editing wizardry in action here. The evidence for that would be Romney's comment, "This is not a political issue", which tells me that Kennedy was trying to pit a social issue on an economic policy that Romney was supporting. Reagan was a wild card in 1980 - not everyone who is on board with his policies now was on board during his campaign. Over time, we've seen the good that came out of it, and as his accomplishments have been whittled away by bureacracy over the years....many politicians are standing firmer behind Reaganism...Romney included. I think that Romney will go beyond what Reagan did economically - again, I'd have to see the rest of the debate to fully comment on why he seems to have thrown Reagan under the bus here.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
I don't even know why this was referred to as cause for concern - he's promoting TRANSPARENCY. He's not requiring quotas...he wants businesses to deal with public pressure if they choose to discriminate. Firms that make this information public already do so for the same reasons - reputation and social acceptance...which means more clients and better employment pools. The firm I work at is one of the top firms in the country for diversity, and it was founded by a former Reagan cabinet member. Makes Romney sound more Reagan-standard, not less, to me....
And that's my $.02. =)
Wow, that's a LOT of ignorance in one post. I look forward to you setting her straight on Mitt when you post your reply to that discussion.
Actually, I think I was in middle school back then...high school in late ‘99.
Running into a new place and acting like you have been there forever and everyone should ‘know’ you is a bit much. Especially when the place is oft overrun with poseurs..
Friendly fire kills too, hence why armies wear uniforms...
You’re a neanderthal.
No point in any response to your dopey rant.
Wow...
Me too...
Seth, do us proud buddy...
You just a young ‘un. ;-)
Aww, you’re breaking my heart, troll. Get lost.
I hear you.
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.