Posted on 02/17/2007 8:08:37 PM PST by EternalVigilance
"Romney, unlike Giuliani, is far more likely to keep his commitments to us."
I very strongly agree. Romney has spent, is spending and will spend much time persuading conservatives, his conversion is sincere. He will not be able to betray his own conversion without losing ALL credibility.
Will Guiliani and Hillary be better or even as good for pro-life as Romney?
Will Romney be making those comments about abortion as President?
If that is true, why do you thing he has any credibility now? After all, he has said clearly in the past that he will "never waver" on his staunch pro-abort position.
Who knows? It all depends on what Romney perceives to be a net political plus for Romney. Of course, as is his wont, he'll be saying the exact opposite to someone else five minutes later anyhow.
The answer to the question I posed to you is, NO.
In fact it is likely Romney as President, will publicly support the pro-life position, unlike Hillary and Guiliani, who will be publicly pro-choice, and thus Romney is far better for the unborn than they are.
Come on. Get real. Romney has played both sides of every issue that he thought he could get away with it on.
So we conclude that Jim Bopp is unpaid because he *claims* he's unpaid? Yeah, he's *volunteering* his services out of the goodness of his heart. Man, sometimes people's sheer naivete amazes me.
If prolifers support a pro abort politician for president, then Pro Life is pretty much dead. The point will be quite conceded.
Romney is NOT a "pro abort" presidential candidate.
He does not support abortion on demand, he is against late-term abortions, and he is opposed to embryonic stem cell research.
He may have had different opinions in the past, as have I.
Christ doesn't care where you've been so much as which direction you're headed.
I try to follow His example.
Yeah, he should. But I won't hold my breath.
No he isn't. He supports the destruction of human embryos, as long as they aren't cloned.
Yes, that is exactly what I conclude based on his word alone. Jim Bopp's word is his bond. Ask anyone involved in pro-life activism what Jim Bopp has accomplished in his career to defend the sanctity of life (start with Post #12). I've heard Bopp speak at pro-life events on four occasions. The man is revered by those in attendance. Cynicism is good, billybudd, but blind cynicism can lead one astray.
This is the guy that the "honorable" Jim Bopp is supporting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
I don't have a problem with one changing one's mind. Reagan did it. Bush I did it. Romney has done it twice, He has gone from pro-life to pro-abort and ostensibly back to pro-life. You get one about face. The second becomes suspect. Both of his u-turns were done in politically timely fashion. I do not trust such a man on any issue.
I don't expect any of them to do a thing for pro life.
I expect that Mrs. Clinton, if elected will get a Republican congress in 2010. I expect that either Giuliani or Romney will for their full tenures face Democrat Congresses. And they will strive to get along.
So you support Romney because he's gotten more donations? This is what our "democracy" has turned into? No wonder we see big-spending, pro-illegal politicians running the GOP.
Endorsements can be (and probably often are) bought. Having a record of supporting homosexualism didn't stop McCain from getting a warm welcome from certain evangelicals. It's all bull****, in my book. I wouldn't even bother analyzing Rudy McRomney on the issues.
I don't close the door on McCain either. Nor would I close it on Giuliani. They all have pretty bad records. But Romney bugs me on a personal level because of how slimy his flip-flopping is. Disingenuous and reprehensible. He's like the GOP's Kerry.
And this Massachusetts guy who once attacked Ted Kennedy for not being committed enough to abortion - this guy is positioning himself as the socially conservative candidate?
I'm sorry: You don't just spend your whole life condoning murder and then all of a sudden change your mind in order to appeal to mainstream Americans.
I support Hunter too. And I have nothing against Ron Paul either.
I don't understand: why Romney and not Giuliani?
"So we conclude that Jim Bopp is unpaid because he *claims* he's unpaid? Yeah, he's *volunteering* his services out of the goodness of his heart. Man, sometimes people's sheer naivete amazes me."
LMAO! Seriously.
"In fact it is likely Romney as President, will publicly support the pro-life position, unlike Hillary and Guiliani, who will be publicly pro-choice, and thus Romney is far better for the unborn than they are."
McCain, as much as I hate him, is pro-life. And has consistently been so. Huckabee is pro-life. Brownback is pro-life. Hunter is pro-life. Gingrich is pro-life (I think he'll run).
We're turning into Democrats here, supporting candidates because they "can beat [insert name of vilifed opposition candidate." Conservatives are supposed to care about the issues, not to just flock to rock star candidates.
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.