Posted on 06/07/2006 11:36:25 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
Mitt Romney (current Mass. Governor and current top-teir 2008 pres. candidated) was on PBS this past Monday doing an interview with the Charlie Rose Show. Link here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4362623183954478320&q=romney to watch the streaming video (The interview starts about 3.5 min in and goes for about 25+ minutes . . . commercial free!)
They hit many major topics including, Iraq, religion/Mormonism, "RomneyCare", global warming, gay marriage, abortion, Ann Romney, and balancing the budget in Massachusetts. Romney was convincing and spot on with all of his answers. Especially memorable was his convincing explanation of why abortion should be a "states rights" issue while the gay marriage must be addressed at the federal level with a constitutional amendment.
Why? Romney is a RHINO
My impression of Mitt Romney is that he's a panderer. He will say anything he thinks you want to hear, without a reasoned political philosophy to back up his positions.
For example, he supports amending the Constitution to protect marriage, and yet invokes "states' rights" when it comes to protecting innocent life in the womb, and says abortion should be legal in any state that desires it.
Never mind that the Civil War determined that destroying innocent human life can never be a state's prerogative.
Did you listen to his reasoning on this issue?
It makes sense because abortion is a "one and done" deal where marriages/families are entities that cross state borders.
And abortion IS legal in every state right now . . . what he is saying is that states that don't want it should be able to make it illegal. This is important, and if you REALLY CARE about the lives of the unborn (as I do) you REALLY SHOULD want it to become illegal wherever possible (thereby saving millions of lives) instead of holding on to a passionate ideal of getting it outlawed everywhere--which has little chance of happening now or in the near future, unfortunately.
However, his abortion argument is flawed. Romney supposes that life issues can vary from state to state, that one state can kill the innocent and another choose not to. That is inconsistent with a federalist view of the Constitution, and falls in line, exactly, with the arguments of the losing Confederates of the Civil War.
Life is a federal issue.
I agree that "life is a federal issue" but (and it pains me to use this cliche so abrasively in this situation) "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".
Any lives that can be saved by legally banning abortion in any state that will is worth a lot in my book. Romney is a "man of action" and pragmatic. He sees the best way to protect the unborn in the current environment is to allow states to ban it . . . I would not want to be the person who "holds out" for a federal ban in a Quixotal crusade while millions of deaths could have been prevented by using a more pragmatic approach. Philosophical arguements about the consistency of Federalist stances on different issues seem minute when the lives of the unborn are at stake.
Life is not one of them.
Either we stick with our American principles, that all men are created equal and endowed with the right to life, or our country has no moral basis on which to stand.
God continues to bless America so long as we acknowledge Him as the source of our rights. To accept abortion as something that can be legal in any state in this nation is to turn our backs on God and the principles that created this nation.
Mitt Romney lacks the moral grounding needed to lead America away from destructive liberal policies. (And that statement has nothing to do with his religion.)
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.