Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Means little. A man's record, not his endorsements, is what counts. And Mitt's record, despite what the shills may say, is not so good on abortion. Certainly not as good as FDT's or DH's. Neither is Willard's record on guns.

Romney's record on life issues is precisely what lead prominent pro-life leaders to endorse him. His record on abortion issues is solid and it is pro-life. Name the pro-life leaders and groups who, so impressed by their records, have endorsed FDT and DH.

As for guns, Romney also has a good record. He earned a B from the NRA, was endorsed by a member of the NRA Board of Directors as well as a past Executive Director of the NRA because of his good gun record. The ONE bill that he signed that did extend an existing ban was actually supported by the NRA as well as the Gun Owners Action League.

His actual record on both issues you mention - which you say is the most important factor - is solid.

By the way, you might want to cease using the "shill" pejorative. Is a Fred Thompson supporter a "shill" simply because they openly support Thompson? Am I a "shill" just because I support someone that you don't? That's neither constructive nor mature to employ such namecalling to belittle fellow FReepers simply because you disagree with them on a single candidate in a single election.

55 posted on 10/29/2007 9:36:11 AM PDT by Spiff (<------ Mitt Romney Supporter (Don't tase me, bro!) Go Mitt! www.mittromney.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: Spiff
By the way, you might want to cease using the "shill" pejorative. Is a Fred Thompson supporter a "shill" simply because they openly support Thompson?

No, a "shill" is someone who supports a candidate either dishonestly or out of ignorance and largely for political reasons having nothing to do with ideological conformity, and who attacks other candidates on the basis of same (i.e., regardless of what a candidate believes or does). Mitt's actual record (which you've been silent about, other than to refer to it nebulously as a "reason" why other shills also support Romney), is not very good on abortion issues (which, btw, are not completely contiguous with the more ill-defined "life issues" spoken of by people with poor records on abortion).

Am I a "shill" just because I support someone that you don't? That's neither constructive nor mature to employ such namecalling to belittle fellow FReepers simply because you disagree with them on a single candidate in a single election.

No, you are a shill because you falsely portray (whether intentionally or because you have on blinders, I will not render an opinion) Mitt's position(s) on abortion. Likewise, you falsely attack FDT on the issue, using verifably false claims. Case in point would be your claim that FDT voted for some anti-life amendment to a bill back in 1995 (which you tried to use to "prove" that FDT doesn't have a "100% pro-life record). I disproved your assertion quite handily, something to which you never bothered to respond.

72 posted on 10/29/2007 9:52:35 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Libertarianism is applied autism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

To: Spiff
Wasn’t he also Pro CHOICE when running for Governor? That doesn’t make his position solid does it? Or am I wrong?
460 posted on 10/30/2007 4:02:52 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson