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.
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.
Guess what, if they haven't heard of us by now (after all we took down Dan Ratherbiased, get mentioned by Rush all the time and get smeared in the press on a regular basis), they damn sure aren't going to hear about us on your little blog.
If YOU had done a “little research” you’d know that questioning my conservatism, my dedication or my ability is ridiculous.
BS!
I've researched your posts over the last month. You pimp your blogs and ping a few people to some threads.
The bottom line, as I've repeated numerous times, REAL conservatives don't even consider whether or not Myth is a conservative, it would make as much sense as Christians wondering whether Osama bin Laden was a Christian.
You seem to think that six months worth of pinging here somehow means you are a conservative -- it DOES NOT. There were a bunch of Rooty Rooters who also thought they were conservative, it turned out they thought that ANYONE with an "R" after their name was a conservative, they were wrong.
Free Republic is not a liberal debate society. We don't debate whether liberals like Romney or Giuliani would make a good candidate. Its a foregone conclusion.
I don't care what you post on your "blog". I'm still waiting for you to reply right here on this forum to honest questions and legitimate issues raised by my fellow FReepers. So far, you've ducked everything thrown at you and acted like a juvenile deliquent.
Clearly, you didn't post this thread to appeal to those who don't frequent Free Republic. You posted this thread to see how many hits you could attract to your blog.
>>>>>If YOU were a credible conservative, YOU would know better.
I'll stack my fast approaching 10-year membership to this forum and 40+ year political activism, up against your paltry 6-month Newbie membership/conservativewannabe, ANYTIME!