Posted on 07/12/2012 7:10:54 AM PDT by xzins
It seems every time presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gets conservatives looking his way, he does something to turn them off and remind them that one of the greatest concerns they had about him during the primary season was his soft record on the conservative social agenda.
...snip
Romney’s speech to the NAACP was an otherwise unremarkable repetition of his standard campaign pitch until he got to this line, ... “…I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed and sexual orientation. From the poorest to the richest and everyone in between."
Of course, the President represents “all Americans,” but by including sexual orientation along with race and creed, Governor Romney undid a lot of the goodwill ...
Governor Romney and his inexperienced establishment Republican staff apparently failed to notice that by putting sexual orientation on the same plane as race and religion, Romney just undercut the rational and philosophical basis for opposition to same sex marriage. It also played right into the hands of supporters of the radical homosexual agenda.
Since Governor Romney and his speechwriters apparently haven’t figured this out, we will clarify it for them: social conservatives do not believe sexual orientation creates the same kind of constitutional rights that forbid discrimination based on race or religion.
That’s why we support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for example, and why social conservatives lead support for marriage amendments ...
By pandering to those who want to give sexual orientation the same status under the Constitution as race and religion enjoy, Mitt Romney put many social conservatives back on the sidelines of the presidential campaign, wondering whether what he said at Liberty University is what he really believes -- or if he was just pandering to us, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativehq.com ...
That’s the way the math works!
True Blue Liberty awaits your insights. Adios.
No it doesn’t.
The math is column addition:
Romney total
Obama total
Goode total
Johnson total
Green Pty total
Using your method, it makes “mathematical” sense to say your failure to vote for Goode, the only conservative in the race, means you support liberalism. Do you?
If I don’t choose #1 Rainbow Bread or #2 Wonder Bread but pick bakery bread, does that mean I support Rainbow over Wonder? Or does it say that I prefer bakery bread?
Great. So, does that mean you are going to stop insulting FReepers then if they don’t support Romney? Pointing back to a truce that you just violated doesn’t mean much otherwise.
I presume you're referring to his May 4 thread Frank discussion re our loss to Obama/Romney and the future direction of FR and tea party movement, in which he said this?
I don’t care what other members do for Romney, but please do not expect me or any other pro-life, pro-family, pro-gun, pro-small government person who declines to support him to join in on the Romney parade. I will not vote for him, will not endorse him, will not support him, will not campaign for him and will not run banners for him. And I will reserve the right to support another candidate if a miracle happens at the convention and a real conservative jumps in.We must have conservative majorities so we can control the agenda and or impeach the usurpers no matter who wins!!
“SILENCE IS CONSENT!”
Oh, my....Look who is making my point to raise money!
Not voting for the ONLY candidate that can’t beat Obama is EXACTLY, the same as the consent of silence!
A couple of months ago (right about the same time as Jim's May 4 thread, as I recall) an uber-liberal friend of mine asked me how I felt about having to vote for Romney to "get rid of" Obama. I responded by saying "who said I'm voting for Romney? I'm a political conservative first, not a Republican." It just so happens that, until recently, some Republicans represented my own interests. This year, not so much.
As I told my friend, I don't vote against candidates. I vote for candidates who will advance my interests (which include pro-life, pro-self-government, reduction of income taxes, permanent reduction of the size of federal government, pro-military, school choice, border protection, and pro-Christian religious freedom). Why should anyone vote for a candidate who does not, or will not represent their interests? That's the whole point of representative government.
We can skip discussing what Obama stands for, because neither of us will be voting for him. Do you know what Romney stands for? Do you support what Romney stands for? Are you willing to go on record, four years from now, as having been a supporter of what he will do/did to this country?
I'm not voting for Romney, and I'm not voting for Obama. In the end, I want my name to be associated with something more than "anyone and anything but Obama". If your vote is for anyone who can beat Obama, then you'll be signing your name to a blank check politically. Anything can happen, and you didn't care so long as the other guy didn't win.
Voting for Obama is a consent to fascism. Voting for Obama-Lite is a vote for only slightly less fascism, IMO. Is creeping fascism easier to accept, when it's brought on by the Republican Party?
What the hell is Romney -a leftist progressive panty waist?
Exactly which subjective sexual "orientations" is he supporting -just the leftist politically correct dujour -what about those into beastiality or little boys and girls?
Romney SUCKS!!!!
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.