Let me get this straight. Reagan signed pro-abort lgislation into law and then later said he made a mistake and had learned from it. But if anyone running against Palin has the same epiphany they are RINO’s that need to be run out of town on a rail?
I’m not defending Romney, just pointing out the inconsistencies.
Reagan signed what was meant as very limited and targeted abortion legalization legislation for instances where the health of the mother was in danger. Doctors abused that provision, and Reagan learned from it and later said he regretted signing the legislation as a result.
Romney supported legal abortion demand - including minors being able to get an abortion without parental notification or consent - as he campaigned in 1994 and 2002.
If you can't grasp the difference, I can't help you.
Romney was hated here long before Palin was on the stage.
Romney is wealthy, Mormon, opportunistic, extremely smart, telegenetic. All the things that open him up for ridicule. He also made a career out of being a liberal on a host of social and other issues, giving opponents reams of information to use against him.
Most people work backwards from the result — if you view it that way, it all makes sense. Reagan is a good conservative, so if he signed some law once, or if he granted amnesty, or traded arms for hostages, it was for good reason, and it doesn’t discount his ocnservative credentials.
However, if there’s a candidate you dislike, the same actions can be used for ridicule and dismissal. Current example: probably every conservative governor has pardoned or commuted SOMEONE who later in life did or will go on to commit some terrible crime.
But we only trot it out if it’s helpful to attack a candidate we dislike anyway. If a candidate we like is found to have done the same thing, we will explain why it’s different.