Posted on 12/16/2011 6:19:52 AM PST by dmz
No, I have lots of other problems with Romney.
However, abortion for me is a “no way” issue. Government's primary job is to bear the sword of the civil magistrate to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. When government protects baby-killers and punishes babies, it's turned its primary purpose upside down.
Jim Robinson has done a real service by posting the Romney videos on this site. In his campaign for Massachusetts governor, Romney repeatedly insisted he is pro-choice, that his own mother lost her race back in Michigan because she was pro-choice, and that letting people make up their own minds on abortion has been a core position for him and his family for their entire political life.
Romney says he's rethought his views on abortion and is now pro-life.
People change their political views. I get that. But on a change this major, a pro-choice politician needs to be repenting of his prior failure to protect life. This is not a minor issue, it's a **REALLY** major issue, and I don't see Romney doing much to avoid the logical conclusion that he changed his views for reasons of opportunism, not for reasons of personal conviction.
We cannot afford to have a man in the White House appointing Supreme Court judges who does not consider protecting life to be a no-compromise issue. Romney doesn't meet that test.
(By the way, don't jump me for using the words “pro-choice” here. Romney's position was that abortion is wrong and should not be chosen by believers, but that it's not the government's role to make religious decisions for people. Romney's position was very wrong, and I believe it is flat-out evil, but a decision to permit doctors to profit from killing babies is significantly different from some of the Planned Parenthood types who really **DO** advocate abortion. We're dealing with two related but different views here — both are wrong, but we need to be accurate in how we condemn each view. There's not a dime's worth of difference in the practical effect of being a pro-choice and a pro-abortion politician — either way, babies die — but there are important differences in how we level attacks on the different views that lead to legalized baby-killing.)
You can't be serious. If you are, you're on the wrong site.
Don't forget that this site was heavily pro-Palin until she decided not to run. Many and probably most of us are quite willing to support a conservative woman running for political office if she's the best candidate.
Comments like yours, even if they are intended as troll bait, need to get a thought-out conservative response to bury them in the ground rather than leave people wondering if the logical outcome of conservatism is barring women from voting.
I'm not unaware of the conservative arguments being made a century ago against universal suffrage for both women and men. Basically the arguments took two forms. One was based on the (correct) biblical principle of male headship in the home and the church which incorrectly — and contrary to explicit biblical examples such as Deborah — was extended from the spheres of the home and the church to the sphere of the state. The other form was practical rather than principled, namely, that adding women to the voting rolls would damage political life on the grounds that women were uneducated, that women vote based on emotions and not reason, and that women were predominantly anti-war and were predominantly supporters of Prohibition.
Those arguments were wrong then, they're wrong now, and fortunately most of us in the conservative movement know that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with women voting. There is nothing wrong with women running for office, as long as they are conservative, and for some purposes in some races, a conservative woman is **MUCH** more electable than a man with the same views.
There is absolutely nothing inconsistent in being a conservative supporter of women voting in civil elections and of women being elected to civil office.
Some of us, myself included, have major problems with women in church office. That's a whole different issue. God has established rules for the church and the home that are far more specific than what he has established for the state or for Christians in politics. If I understand correctly, Michelle Bachmann couldn't even vote in the congregational meetings when she was a member of a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran church, but that didn't stop her from becoming aggressively involved in civil politics.
How about he’s not even a republican must less a conservative. He shouldn’t even be in the race. He has NOT done one thing FOR America. So this crapola anyone is better than barry is false - he’s the exact same, IMO. And then we have all these candidates - who couldn’t give a flip about America but themselves first and don’t have a chance of winning stay in instead of throwing their support behind someone who has a chance to bring both mitt and obama down and then has the know how to implement his plans. Some down even have plans or ‘pie in the sky’! This election is not rocket science but leave it to ‘so called’ conservative Americans to screw it up and practically give America away! True conservatives have wisdom and discernment.
Wrong - they are NOT Republicans. Because they claim they are is good enough for you? Their ‘actions’ tell the whole story and this his half liberal/half GOP vote proves it - because NO republican would have any liberalism in them. Tell us - where is the republican in him that you claim is there.
Mitt should not even be in this race! He has not done one thing FOR America. And the fact the GOP elite and the liberal media is pandering for him tells the story. And they don’t want NEWT - and that says alot. Or at least it should to those who, at least, have one eye open.
Thank you.
There is no way I am going to vote for Mitt Romney in the primary. I don't want to think about what sort of choice I may need to make if Romney is the GOP nominee against President Obama — third parties are all but certain to lead to an Obama re-election. The best way to prevent that decision from ever being necessary is to keep him from winning the GOP nomination.
64 posted on Friday, December 16, 2011 10:27:49 AM by Strategerist: “The above is a fantasy, not a reality. Sorry. Just anecdotally, on a personal level, I know only at most 3-4 people who AREN'T in the broad middle, politically, and many dozens who are in the middle. The number of those who are fiscal conservatives but social liberals, especially, in the country ALONE is vast - and there are plenty of other types of people in the “Mushy Middle.” The only way someone could convince themselves of the falsehood that there are no moderates is someone who only sits at their computer and reads FR and DU, and think that the posters represent the country.”
A caution here: in the United States, unlike some other countries which have a high turnout rate, election winners are determined by which side gets their supporters to the polls, not necessarily who has the most public support.
Many moderates don't vote, at least not on a consistent basis. Many other moderates don't vote except in presidential elections.
The result is that the winners of the primary races, the off-year national elections, and most state and local races other than those which happen to be on a November election ballot tend to be determined by the ability of the candidate to aggressively appeal to a constituency of highly committed voters, usually but not always with commitments due to ideology.
With some important exceptions, that leads to a bipolar model of the electorate rather than a bell curve. The most common exceptions to ideologically motivated turnout happen when a sports star, a movie star, or someone else with broad public appeal motivates lots of people into voting who don't typically vote. It's less common, but massive dissatisfaction with the status quo can lead to a “throw them all out” anti-incumbent mentality that harms everyone who has been in office for long periods regardless of party, though the people who get hurt the worst in such anti-incumbent periods are from the party in power.
Another view is that the broad masses are happy with the government they've got so they don't vote ~ they leave it up to those who care or who are concerned ~ and can only be convinced to vote when there's a national disaster at hand. They rarely vote against doing something about it.
I don't necessarily agree with that second view ~ George Will came up with it to explain low voter turnout.
On the other hand there's something to it.
LBJ happened to follow the same political theory regarding the way elections happen in America and he began peeling off a major Republican structural element ~ the half of the manufacturing union guys who regularly voted Republican in those days and the Teamsters.
Later ~ years later ~ Nixon, who also followed that political theory about how to win elections, made up for things and even pulled in the Teamsters leadership.
I think Rush is referring ONLY to the more public part of the Republican structure ~ the bluehairs who cut coupons will come across with the big bucks for ANY Republican who has the slightest connection to their class ~ and Niki's connection was "short woman with babies".
He actually thinks that if we no longer have any official government involvement in Israel the Moslems will no longer attack us and all will be well.
He is, of course, nuts. The Middle East is free of British and French occupation forces because Harry Truman told them to get out of the ME. We then moved ahead to create Israel as was planned at the end of WWI.
The Arabs are unable to be appreciative ~ in the worst grinding poverty they've always thought themselves a cut above foreign barbarians. That's exactly why the Mongols DESTROYED BAGHDAD.
You do not win an election in America by rejecting the voters. You have to have the party base behind you.
So far no one who has been repudiated by the party base of either party has ever won the Presidency.
We already have an idiot just like him at the top.
Time to get rid of the Fascists.
Which is why it is imperative that conservatives vote against Romney in the primary. I will support Gingrich just to get Romney out of the way, then take it from there.
Which is why it is imperative that conservatives vote against Romney in the primary. I will support Gingrich just to get Romney out of the way, then take it from there.
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.