Replies

Same old spin. Romney really means what he says!

I am glad Romney says he is pro-life now. But it smells to high heaven of political expediency.

Just like, you know all his other conversions.

Guns. Gay rights. Illegal immigration. yadda yadda.

Same old spin. Romney really means what he says! I am glad Romney says he is pro-life now. But it smells to high heaven of political expediency.

I find it interesting that you don't even need to compare Mitt's old stances on all kinds of issues with his new stances to see how "convenient" his changes are. I mean just go back to 1994 with some of the YouTube clips of his debate against Ted Kennedy.

He says he will "sustain and support that [Roe-based] law" and that he would "sustain and support" a woman's choice [to abortion]. What few folks understand is that the word "sustained" to a Mormon is a sacred word.

LDS have that word several times in Doctrines & Covenants (LDS "Scripture"). "Sustained" is the word used by LDS grassroots members toward their dead "prophets," their living "prophets," and their general authorities. By "sustaining" these people, the entire belief system is committed to what they have revealed.

For Mitt to say he would "sustain" Roe and then not "sustain" Roe would be like a Mormon saying he would "sustain" his living prophet and then back out.

Likewise, Mitt covers all bases with his 1994 statement on the Boy Scouts, first saying the Boy Scouts should do what they want to do; and then saying in his next breath anybody of any "sexual orientation" "should be allowed to participate" in the Scouts.

Same old spin. Romney really means what he says! I am glad Romney says he is pro-life now. But it smells to high heaven of political expediency. Just like, you know all his other conversions.

How many evangelical and pro-life leaders have to vet Mitt Romney and express their support before you realize that you're wrong when you accuse Romney of a false conversion? They've got their credibility to lose and the missions of their organization can be negatively effected if they're wrong. They did the homework and they came up Romney supporters. It's not some conspiracy to fool you into voting for Romney. These are bona fide conservative, pro-life, and evangelical leaders and such that are putting their support behind Romney because that, more than any other top tier candidate, he shares their conservative, pro-life, and pro-family values.

Just like, you know all his other conversions.

If Mitt can convince me that he really has converted from pro-abortion to pro-life, from a gun grabber to a 2nd Amendment supporter, and is fully opposed to "gay" marriage I would at least seriously consider switching my tentative support from Fred to Mitt. After Fred's somewhat less than stellar performance on the farce the MSM called a debate last night, I have doubts about his appeal to uncommitted young voters who may incorrectly perceive him to be just a sick, tired, old man.

Personally I still prefer Fred to any of the other high ranked GOP contenders, including Mitt. But it is of the utmost possible importance that Hillary, or any Democrat for that matter, be prevented from appointing the next two or three USSC Justices, not to mention abandoning the WOT to appease the barking moonbat portion of her left wing party. I can't and I won't vote for Giuliani, but I could and I will vote for Mitt if he's the GOP nominee.