I am not shouting Mitt's praises, far from it...just making an unfortunate, difficult, pragmatic decision based on what's left to vote on...and for the reasons I mentioned.
If Mitt Romney, who unlawfully and unconstitutionally instituted gay marriage, signed a permanent “assault” weapons ban and still supports one nationally, completely homosexualized state government and the public schools, and pushed through socialized medicine complete with taxpayer-funded abortions, wins the Republican nomination, I will be working to start a new party, as well as working just as hard against the Evil Party Two as I always have against Evil Party One.
Tell me Jeff. Which is more dangerous to the sheep: A wolf in wolve’s clothing, or a wolf in sheep’s clothing?
This is shaping up to be Schwarzenegger redux. Although, I have to say, Arnie at least put the kibosh on the move to gay marriage.
* 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
* “Mitt Romney’s wife, son, and daughter-in-law signed a petition in support of a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban both gay marriage and domestic-partner benefits in Massachusetts - an amendment that Romney himself condemned as too extreme after being told of his family’s support for it. … Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney campaign spokesman, said Romney opposes gay marriage but also opposes the amendment, since he sees no reason to change the current laws, which allow for domestic-partner benefits to public employees.… ‘Mitt did not know they signed it, and Mitt does not support it,’ he said. ‘As far as Mitt is concerned, it goes farther than current law, and therefore it’s unnecessary.’ “
- Boston Globe 3/22/2002
* “Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the “Protection of Marriage” amendment. “He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the ‘defense of marriage’ amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept.”
- Bay Windows 3/28/02
* When Romney was running against Sen. Ted Kennedy, Bay Windows asked him how he would have voted on an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would ban federal funds from public schools which are “encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” He answered:
“I would have opposed that amendment...It...grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party.”
- Bay Windows, 8/25/1994
And then, of course, from this electon:
"“There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice,” he said. [”N.H. woman challenges Romney on gay marriage” - AP]
I just want to be sure you're fully aware of what you're managing to justify to yourself.
The nomination of Mitt Romney will mean that politicians now have a license to lie with impunity, and that their records mean nothing to those who are deluding themselves.
Whatever you do, Jeff, don't ever say that you weren't warned.