Replies

If I could be assured that Romney was more conservative than any of the other candidates, he would receive my full support. But Romney has New England Liberal Republican credentials. Up until he decided to run for president, he was a staunch abortion proponent. So from a primary point of view, Romney is not acceptable to me.

Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal abortion bill in the country in 1968. Although his biographer claims that in conversations with Ronnie, he was always opposed to abortion, there is no proof that he was. In 1975, Ronnie came out against abortion with a profound conviction of its immorality. That was only a year before he ran for the nomination against Ford as a pro-lifer.

Most of us are pro-life converts. This is true of the entire pro-life movement.

If he has converted to pro-life, then we should accept him. The same way Ronnie was accepted without further questioning of his motives.

I would point out that Romney and his wife looked into supporting embryonic research because it was a political issue and because she suffers with MS. As you know, multiple sclerosis is not an easy death. So they consulted with a Harvard researcher. What they found repelled them and turned them against embryonic research and Romney took action as governor. They have, since then, consistently opposed abortion and embryonic research and cloning. Given that the lovely Mrs. Romney faces a hard death from suffocation, it would be only too easy for them to champion embryonic research. That they refuse to do so on moral grounds and speak to the issue extensively should go some distance in allaying concerns over the sincerity of their pro-life convictions.

Many of us pro-life converts could tell a not dissimilar story of when we finally realized just what being pro-abortion really means. And how we, like the Romneys, recoiled from it and became pro-life.

I would also point out that converts are often your most energetic and effective advocates. And, although it might sound cynical, Mrs. Romney would easily counter any further attempts by Michael J. Fox to go off his meds deliberately to tape more pro-infanticide/pro-cloning commercials by using pity for his condition to soften up the voters, as happened in Missouri and other states in '06.

If the Romneys are sincere (and I don't have reason to doubt it yet), Mitt could be far and away the best pro-life nominee we could field.

However if he gets the primary nod, then I will fully support him. However, if Rudy gets the primary nod, I will not be voting for a Republican for president. Rudy is an UNREPENTANT abortion proponent. Romney is a repentant and allegedly former abortion proponent who is running now on his opposition to abortion. It's a hard pill to swallow, but not impossible.

I entirely agree. I will never vote for Rudy. NEVER! Romney, well, if he can pass muster with the pro-life and pro-gun arms of the GOP, it will be good enough for me. So far, he's making the right moves.

If Fred Thompson were a Mormon, I would still be hoping and praying that he enters the race. It would make no difference to me at all.

Exactly so. We will face defeat if we start bickering over theology. We will deserve defeat if we let the libmedia bait us into doing it.

BTW, you did notice that Harry Reid is a Mormon, admittedly a very corrupt one (unlike the squeaky-clean businessman and CEO that Romney is)?

It's no accident that the Dims selected a Mormon to lead their Senate. They are trying to split our loyal Mormon allies from the Party Of Reagan. This is a deliberate strategy that will entail our long-term defeat at the polls. Without our Mormon allies, there would never have been a President George W. Bush. And the Dims know it! (I forgot to mention this part in my previous post.)

None of this is an accident. It's part of a plan by libmedia and the Dims. They have grown smarter. We'd better understand that before it's too late. But the GOP is not the Plantation Party. That's what our enemies are. Either the Mormons are our full partners or they really should look elsewhere. If they have a good candidate who supports the entire party platform then he gets a fair shot, not just some cheap shots at the theology of his church.

BTW, you did notice that Utah went after the FLDS very strongly? That is also no accident, IMO. They're cleaning up the last embarrassing remnants of the polygamy era. About time too, especially if they're planning to field a serious presidential candidate and back him financially (which they are certainly doing). I think the FLDS will not exist in America by the end of the year.