They entice themselves to believe things that are not true generally in hopes to promote someone else.
IE One guy will play up and exaggerate the opponents positions (and in some cases downright not tell the truth), and when it comes to their own guy he can do no wrong.
For example, Romney is not and has not ever been for gay marriage. By the rationale of some freepers, we should have weekly meetings condemning Richard Nixon. Why? Because he was the President when Roe V Wade was decided upon.
People are measuring with one yard stick one candidate and with a different one for another.
If you are not equally bashing Nixon over believing in and being an abortionist SOB, then you have no intellectual right to say the same thing about Romney and Gay marriage.
As for gay rights in general gay people have the right to life libery and the pursuit of happiness. This is in the consitution. They should not be beaten up around the corner and have to fear. That being said, they do not deserve special rights.
What they are doing is wrong. It is immorral, but it would be even more immoral and unconstitutional to condone violence against them. That is two ends of the spectrum and Romeny (and my position) falls in between the two of that they have the right to live in America in peace, but that they do not get special treatment and when it comes to marriage the dividing line falls clearly in favor of traditional marriage. While we do not persecute people, we also do not endorse what they do for a whole litnay of reasons.
Secondly, how did you conclude open borders and amnesty for Romney?
Thirdly, you said Romney has a weak position on gun control. Given I will concede a little ground on that.
Forthly, how did you derive a weak position on taxing and spending? Romeny is the most fiscally conservative one of the whole lot.
Nanny Stater/Untrustworthy... both of these are subjective arguments. Part of the untrustworthy part is that people make up their minds then try to sink the other guy. Just like above with gay marriage...people hear only what they want to hear and ignore the rest.
As for the nanny state bit, I assume you are talking about the health insurance plan. The way I see it the government is already a nanny state period. The government is already paying for those too lazy or unwilling to pay for themselves. This is the defacto fact. People are simply living off the dole in regards to health care. It is a defacto dole, but the net result is the same. However you look at it, those costs come from my pocket.
If Romney or anyone else can figure out a way to force the populace to take personal responsibility I will support it. yes I said force the populace. As conservatives we have zero problem forcing welfare recipients to work for welfare. If that is the case then why don't we have zero problems forcing the equivalent of welfare recipients that are abusing the system to work for healthcare?
When you make judgements on health care without basis really I say you are throwing conservative principles out the window and hence I do not trust your judgement. We have fought tooth and nail to get work welfare programs to be institutued simply through government fiat. Why can we not do the same thing with the same principles for those who abuse health care?
Personally this is exactly why I say you have personally thrown your conservative principles out the window when you bash locally produced health care ideas.
Romney is NOT more fiscally conservative than FRed Thompson.
Well, it’s not just that Romney was for abortion before he was against it, or that under his watch and nanny state socialist legislation that he pushed under Ted Kennedy’s approving tutelage, Massachusetts now has Planned Parenhood $50 abortions on demand and also, as I understand, is the only state in the union that has actually enacted gay marriage, he has RINO history. But the buck doesn’t stop with Slick Willard.
Selected quotes:
Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.”
- Boston Globe, March 2, 2006
“I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.”
-2002 Questionnaire for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL)
Boston Globe, July 3, 2005
“Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures.”
- National Review Online, February 11, 2005
“At a campaign appearance at Brandeis University in June 2002, Romney strongly endorsed stem cell research.”
- Boston Globe, December 17, 2006
“When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney said he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill, a high dose of hormones that women can take to prevent pregnancy up to five days after sex . . . On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ‘yes’ to the question, ‘Do you support efforts to increase access to emergency contraception?’ “
- Boston Globe, July 7, 2005
“All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual orientation. While he does not support gay marriage, Mitt Romney believes domestic partnership status should be recognized in a way that includes the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.”
- Romney’s 2002 campaign website
“Mitt and Kerry Wish You a Great Pride Weekend! All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of their sexual preference”
- A flier handed out at “Gay Pride” by the Romney/Healey Campaign
“We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and a bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. One issue I want to clarify concerns [grammar in context] President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share…”
- Governor Romney letter to Log Cabin Republicans, October 6, 1994
In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.
- Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004
“He [Romney] is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”
- Romney 2002 campaign website
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
“That’s not going to make me the hero of the NRA,” Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: “I don’t line up with the NRA.”
- Boston Globe, January 14, 2007
Regarding the Brady Bill which required waiting periods to buy a handgun, Romney stated, “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”
- Boston Herald, August 1, 1994
In a November 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as “quite different” from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.
“That’s very different than amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay,’ “ Romney said in the interview. “It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”
Romney did not specifically endorse McCain’s bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation’s immigration crisis, calling them “reasonable proposals.”
Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,” he said. “In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.”
- Boston Globe, March 16, 2007
“Governor Romney…imposed a slew of fee hikes and tax ‘loophole’ closures….The largest of these was $259 million worth of fee hikes in FY 2004, the bulk of which came from higher Registry of Deeds fees. Smaller fee hikes, including higher charges for boaters and golfers, we imposed in FY 2003 and FY 2005. Romney also sought $128 million worth of so-called tax loophole closures for FY 2004; $70 million for FY 2005; and $170 million for FY 2006, which were later reduced to $85 million due to backlash from business leaders.”
- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney
Romney didn’t support President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003. That earned him praise from liberal Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA)
- Boston Globe, April 11, 2003.
Governor Romney has changed his position on key campaign finance reform issues several times during public life. During his 1994 Senate campaign, he held far left positions that advocated for abolishing PACs and creating strict campaign spending limits.
- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney’s position on political free speech has undergone a radical evolution. During his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney took an outrageous position on campaign finance reform that put him to the left of the current McCain-Feingold legislation, arguing for campaign spending limits-unconstitutional even under Buckley v. Valeo-and the abolition of PACs:
“I personally believe that when campaigns spend the kind of money they’re now spending...and to get that kind of money you’ve gotta cozy up as an incumbent to all of the special-interest groups who can go out and raise money for you from their members, and that kind of relationship has an influence over the way you’re going to vote...And for that reason I would like to have campaign spending limits and to say we’re not going to spend more than this in certain campaigns...I also would abolish PACS. You probably have one. I don’t like them. I don’t like the influence of money-whether it’s business, labor, or any other group. I do not like that kind of influence...”
In his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney proposed a radical new campaign finance system, in which privately-funded campaigns would be taxed 10% in order to fund publicly-funded campaigns as part of Massachusetts’ Clean Election Law in order to “spare taxpayers the burden of shouldering the entire expense of this program.” In 2003, he allowed a repeal of the Clean Elections Law to stand.
- Club for Growth’s White Paper on Mitt Romney
By the way, Government forcing citizens to purchase healthcare insurance against their wishes and whether they need or want it and under threat of penalty is NOT a conservative or free market position. It’s tyranny. We went to war against Brtain for this sort of thing.