I don't know who you are or why you are pinging me, but your statement rings untrue. If you don't like someone's "politics" when those politics mirror those of the GOP platform and 99.9% of the positions held by most Freepers than either: 1) you are misinformed about his politics, 2) you are not a conservative or, 3) you have another reason, besides "his politics," for not liking him.
I see that Americangirl is getting the full treatment from the Romney cult, why don't you make that same post to JR?
There was nothing in post 649 to draw the attack that you really should be aiming at the freeper that started this thread with these words.
"But Romney is a NO go. And I don't care who this socialist, abortionist, homosexualist, constitution trampling bastard picks for running mate. If Romney's in I'm out!"
With all the lies told about Mitt Romney again and again on this forum by as Ann Coulter calls them Romney Froofers, and by Mass. Resistance a fringe group on the right, it is likely reason #1.
I don't believe in biological evolution, but I do believe in political de-evolution. (Some politicians, like Romney, "evolve" -- only to de-evolve again -- like treatment of embryos, deeming "sexual orientation" as possible protected class status in the workplace, his return to board member status of Marriott, which gleans a portion of its profits by joining the porn industry like the corner bookstore in profiteering off of the paid sexual exploitation of women, or presenting gay adopting couples as just another "family" option -- a few years after same-sex marriage was passed in his state on his watch etc.)
Give the most waffling of waffling-tendency politicians a big enough dart board & enough time to toss darts at all the different categories of "positions" to hit, and yeah, that politician will tend to "agree" with the bulk of conservative positions -- depending on the time & place of when they tossed that dart.
But no. I don't believe that businessmen should profiteer (like Romney's business associates) off the in-room rentals of porn movies. (Even if it pales by comparison to the larger rest of the porn industry, please tell us what's the difference between a prostitute who sells herself quarterly vs. a prostitute who sells herself nightly?)
And, no, I don't believe that parents should be "pro-choice" about whether to give up their embryos for "adoption" or "research" (dissection) -- like Romney told Katie Couric in Dec. '07. [Could you really imagine any real pro-life parent in their right mind talking about their offspring in using "adoption" as an option in one sentence and giving that offspring to "research" in the next sentence?]
And, no, I don't think it should be left up to the states to decide if employers should be forced to treat "sexual orientation" as protected class status.
And, no, I don't think RomneyCare, Massachusetts-style, should be emulated nationwide.
And, no, I don't think politicians, upon undergoing a pro-life altar call, should promise in press conferences that they'll uphold a previous promise to maintain the "pro-choice status quo" -- like Romney did 4 years ago this month. "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice," said Romney.
(Wow! The late-term babies in the womb on May 27, 2005 were glad to hear that stellar "pro-life" conviction from such a stellar "anti-abortion" officeholder!!!)
And, no, I don't think gay couples should be treated as stellar, "just another family choice" alternative for adopting kids -- as a June, 2007 New Hampshire comment by Mitt indicated: “There are other ways to raise kids that’s fine: single moms, grandparents raising kids, gay (adopted) couples raising kids. That’s the American way, to have people have their freedom of choice." (See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846252/posts)