Posted on 01/21/2008 11:33:00 AM PST by pianomikey
Romney won the highest percentage of evangelical Christians in Michigan.
He also came in first or second in evangelicals in New Hampshire, and in South Carolina.
Maybe in your small circle of hard-liners Romney is untenable.
The vast middle evangelical conservative practicing Christian wing of the Republican party will support Romney.
He vetoed a bill granting over-the-counter access to the Morning after pill in Massachusetts. He also donated large amounts of money to Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
2) He’s had a conversion on the sanctity of marriage.
Not true. He was always for traditional marriage. He opposed gay marriage from the beginning and campiagned hard for a constitutional amendment to overturn the MA Supreme Judicial Court decision that forced gay marriage on the Commonwealth.
3) He instituted a now-failing form of socialist-lite medical coverage in Massachussetts. How am I to believe that he now wants smaller government?
It's not failing and it's very far from socialist. The crux of his plan was to allow private insurance companies to offer cheaper, no-frills plans to individuals and set up a centralized insurance policy exchange (like a stock exchange) where people could comaprison shop for policies. Individual premiums are now half of what they were before.
The other part of his plan was to re-direct money previously spent on the bills of uninsured users of emergency rooms to subsidize insurance premiums for people who were too wealthy to qualify for medicade but too poor to afford their own plans. Yes, this is a little socialistic, but it seems to me it's better to subsidize insurance than it is to give uninsured people free medical care in emergency rooms.
Certainly not M60s, LAW rockets, etc., since those are already either banned, or regulated by the Federal Government. (I.E. Fully-automatic "Class III" firearms have been strictly regulated since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934.)
IMO It is simply Romneys' way of leaving the door open to further, more expansive gun bans (in addition to H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban), without painting himself into a corner, in regards to what firearms he WOULDN'T ban.
Furthermore, in regards to Romneys' "extraordinary lethality" nonsense, we shouldn't forget that the Brady Campaign wants the .22 rimfire banned, because "more people are killed by the .22 every year, than any other caliber."
The most common killers may surprise you (Brady Barf alert)
If more people are killed with .22s each year, than any other caliber, wouldn't that classify the .22 rimfire as having "extraordinary lethality"?
Ptah~ Not enough by half. It is the truly vast Christian Right that he needs to fear, and he may as well pack it in. His road to Damascus conversions on homos and abortion will not be enough.
If he becomes the nominee, the press will howl about his sins at the top of their lungs and those who support him now without looking at his record will flee.
A-freakin Men!!
But these Mitt Romney are so knee-jerk in their distain for the man, that they dont even bother to LOOK at the details of the Massachusetts plan.
In fact, there is MORE private insurance plans being implemented in Massachusetts now than before when many middle-class and well-to-do people were simply pushing their catastrophic hospital bills onto MediCaid and MediCare -- because they KNEW a compassionate society would never make them sell their assets to pay huge medical bills.
These Romney haters simply yell "Socialist Socialist" at the top of their lungs, without even knowning what the heck Romney proposed.
It's not only depressing, it's embarrassing to the conservative cause that I once thought was analytical and not fraught with juvenile emotion like the lib-Dems.
This is incorrect. Mitt has never had a conversion on the sanctity of marriage.
Now let me explain....
In Massachusetts the talk about gays came up over and over again.
People tried to paint Mitt (just like they do any other person opposed to some gay extremists) as being a 'gay basher' or a homophobe, or someone who even advocates violence against gays.
Just like with most things the pendelum swung way left into the realm of extremism.
What Mitt actually said was, that if two consenting adults go into their room and do what they do we do not approve but we are not going to persecute gays for it. Love the sinner but not the sin.
Gays should not be beaten up for being gay and if they want to be adults about it and be gay on their own, so be it. But that they did not--and should not--get special treatment.
Mitt actually took a classy position but also stood his ground. What do you think they should do? Put out an extermination order against gays? Not me. I don't think thats right at all.
This same group that was trying to pigeon hole "Republican Conservative Mormon" Mitt into being a violent gay hater were put on the defensive...but before long they took their extreme views to the supreme court of Massachusetts where they won a victory by fiat.
No votes, no referrendum, no nothing. Just judicial mandate.
Mitt was on the first plane to Washington and actually testified before the Senate for a Constitutional Ammendment proclaiming marriage as between a man and a woman.
Mitt's position has not changed and I challenge anyone to read the facts of the matter. To say otherwise is a sheer lie.
Duncan Hunter has indicated that he prefers the candidacies of McCain and Huckabee to Romney's.
Mitt also said that he was never pro-choice. Also, that he was effectively pro-choice. Also, that he was dedicated to keeping abortion legal and absolutely pledged that he would never change his mind, 2 years before he supposedly did change his mind.
Some straight shooter, that.
I agree. Fred only delayed my “heartfelt” move to Romney. Unlike the poor SOBs in Iowa and New Hampshire and SC, I’ve only recently started paying attention. Really, I started following about the time Fred jumped in because he excited me. Now I’m excited because we are winnowing the field.
Hate to see Fred go, but it will lighten the field to evaluate the remaining contenders. If Huck really is on the ropes, that’s good too.
Is my ideal candidate among the three remainig (Mitt, Rudy, McCain)? No (and no it’s not Paul, either). But can I find from that mix a candidate better suited to my desires? Yes.
The ultimate test for me is has the individual been in an executive position? I’m a lean toward Mitt.
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.