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 ...
My conscience will not allow me to enable 4 more years of the Obamanation and his administration.
It’s either Romney or Obama..I want Obama OUT.
Many disagree ...I accept that.
I don’t pin tags on people though some have pinned tags on me.
Each of us must vote what we think is best for our country.
Wow. You just revealed YOUR whole schtick. What a phony baloney you are, posing as a "conservative." It looks like you're a Romney sycophant who plays the Mormon Card the same way Jesse Jackson plays the race card. You stink, Larry.
Bad analogy. You, "Kickass" (who are unwilling to attempt doing just that to government tyranny because you're too afraid of risking a confrontation with Obama) ...
...YOU, Kickass, are on the verge of falling for playing "flip the coin" by the rules, "Heads they win, tails we lose." (Hat-tip to EV!)
Here's the hand we're dealt: we each have a vote to influence the top of the ticket. We can either vote FOR government tyranny, or we can vote FOR denying a popular mandate to the government tyrant who will inevitably win.
THAT, FRiend, is the hand we're dealt.
Oh, good grief, what an ignorant thing to post.
The only people who make that charge are RomneyBL.
I thought you were just a R liberal lover, now I understand you don't eve reach that level.
Oh you liberals are just so cool. You are so clouded by your obsession with Romney that you can’t see that Romney will destroy the USA too. Vote Virgil Goode if you are conservative.
He just couldn’t leave it alone.
What surprises you about the fact that many of us don't wait to suffer through eight more years with a liberal in the White House and don't want a repeat of or something worse than the Bush Presidency?
Romney is positioning himself to vie for the independent voters and disaffected Liberals. If he wins the election he will have to convince these squishy independents and disheartend liberals to vote FOR him. Everytime he opens his mouth he convinces me that I cannot vote for him. Let the liberals elect him. He is one of THEM.
They pretend that Obama won’t destroy America and there will be a future opportunity the elect a “true conservative”.
*****************************
Baloney.
Well said.
Opposing Romney is the only way to give us a conservative option in 2016.
You more than anyone on this site need an education desperately. I am providing that education for you. Yes I am spoonfeeding you but I find it worthwhile doing so because it is a desperate situation where you can change your liberal views and become conservative. I feel it is not too late for you.
Goode left Congress after narrowly losing a reelection bid in the 2008 Democratic landslide for Obama.
Fiscal Issues
On spending issues, Goode was better than most as a congressman, reliably voting to cut foreign aid and wasteful spending, and even voting against his own party’s appropriations on some occasions. Goode strongly opposes multilateral free trade agreements as job killers, voting against CAFTA — the Central American Free Trade Agreement — (roll call 443, 2005) and calling for the end of NAFTA and the WTO. In such calls, he could be contrasted with the libertarian-leaning Rep. Ron Paul, who supports free trade but opposes the trade regimes as centralizing forces and threats to national sovereignty rather than as job-killers. Goode makes no claim to support free trade as an absolute good.
Social Issues
On social issues, Goode has a solid conservative record. He is pro-life on abortion, a solid supporter of the Second Amendment (A+ rating from Gun Owners of America) and supports traditional marriage. “I’ve always supported the proposition that marriage should be between one man and one woman,” he said in his April 21 acceptance speech for the Constitution Party presidential nomination.
Goode’s social focus appears to be on immigration, making his candidacy a strong contrast to the establishment candidates Obama and Romney as well as Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
Goode has called for a partial repeal of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to all persons born in the United States. He told Peter Gemma of the Independent Political Report that “The children of illegal aliens are now granted automatic citizenship. That’s wrong and must be addressed right away. This is central to my opposition to granting amnesty for any and all illegal aliens. And I go a step further: legal immigration must be cut back too—Americans with talent and experience must be put to work first before we import foreign job takers.” Goode is far more harsh than the two major party candidates on immigration, calling for a moratorium with few exceptions on even legal immigration for a period of time until the immigration issue can be solved.
Goode stated in his April 21 acceptance speech that “Last year, 1.2 million green cards were issued. A significant number were to working age individuals. When we have individuals that need work, you should not be bringing in so many from foreign nations to take jobs that our citizens have longed for and need.”
Civil Liberty Issues
Goode’s record is weakest on constitutional protections regarding civil liberties. As a congressman, Goode voted to allow warrantless searches (roll call 502, 2006) and for virtual civil immunity for telecommunications firms who provide private subscriber information to intelligence services (roll call 437, 2008). He also voted for military tribunals for terrorist suspects (roll call 491, 2006), tribunals that flatly contradict the Sixth Amendment requirement for a jury trial for all criminal suspects.
Goode says he has learned from his years in the private sector, noting in his acceptance speech at the April 21 Constitution Party national convention that one of the most important votes he made a mistake about was his vote in favor of the Patriot Act (roll call 398, 2001) and its reauthorization (roll call 414, 2005). “I made some mistakes in the house on votes,” Goode said in his acceptance speech, “and one in particular — several but one in particular: I voted for the Patriot Act. And most in this room are very much opposed to that measure. I want to say that my association with the Constitution Party over the last three plus years has given me a better perspective of analyzing legislation from a constitutional viewpoint. And I want to say that I made a mistake in voting for this measure.”
But in the very next words, Goode demonstrated that his improved view of civil liberties had yet to be brought up to the level of actual constitutional understanding. His very next words were that he would seek the repeal of the Patriot Act only “as it applies to U.S. citizens in this country and to legal permanent residents. I do not favor, though this may not comport with all federal court decisions, extending constitutional rights to persons from foreign countries or those illegally in the United States.” Of course, the Constitution does not limit rights to U.S. citizens, nor can it. Rights are inalienable gifts from God. Moreover, the Bill of Rights makes no distinctions between citizens and immigrants — legal or illegal. The Sixth Amendment demands that a trial by jury is a right in “all criminal prosecutions.” It allows no exceptions.
Goode voted against Hate Crimes legislation (roll call 469, 2005) as a congressman. He claims to be for repealing the provisions of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) that would purportedly allow the president to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without trial (in direct contravention of the Sixth Amendment).
Foreign Policy
Goode favors a strong military that is substantially disengaged from unnecessary foreign wars, which is a change from his earlier vote for the Iraq War (roll call 455, 2002). He now says, “I do not believe we should be involved in wars that have not been declared by Congress as specifically provided in the U.S. Constitution, so we must come home from Afghanistan. And I don’t think we can afford — nor is it strategically necessary — to have military bases all over the world. We owe too much money to underwrite the stationing of so many troops all around the world. Finally, I am against placing our armed forces under United Nations command.”
Goode is hoping to piggy-back on the burgeoning Ron Paul liberty movement, stressing that he was a member of Paul’s congressional Liberty Caucus while in Congress. “Ron Paul has been a friend from my first days in Congress. I learned a lot as a member of his Liberty Caucus in the House. I understand his interests in his son’s viability as a presidential candidate, but I’m always an optimist: I’d welcome Ron’s support,” Goode told the Independent Political Report’s Peter Gemma. “We should plan to face reality and capture the Ron Paul constituency on our own. Just look at the issues Ron has run on: audit the Fed, the gold standard, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. That’s our platform!”
Anti-reason bigotry runs deep with liberals.
Who is going to stop him? John McCain? Mitch McConnell? John Boehner?
Republicans are far more likely to stop Obama's agenda than anything Romney does.
I believe that in the SAME speech Romney stated his opposition to gay marriage.
If Goode is running third party for president, he is no good. It should be on the ballot as Goode (Obama).
If Goode is running third party for president, he is no good. It should be on the ballot as Goode (Obama).
What a disaster you are making our country. People like you are the precise reason that this country is about over. You are a “go with the flow” pack believer...Never care about your personal principles and beliefs. You are probably one of those must buy everything that the neighbors have to keep with the the Jones’. Go against the norm for once in your life. Do the right thing and vote for the guy who SHOULD be President. Settling for nothing is not a good option.
You’re promoting a person nobody has heard of, and then suggest “I” need an education?
Physician, heal thyself!
“to deny a mandate to the government tyrant who wins”
ya....that’ll show ‘em....
what a waste you Romney haters are!
I contributed to Newt, and voted for Santorum.
You may take your ball and go home, but quit pretending the effect has any meaning in the real world.
lol. That is actually very funny (second part).....Well if people like you and me and other conservatives started to push this guy, he would win. I never heard of Cruz a few months ago and now he may just win the Texas Senate nomination. Funny how that works huh?
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.