Unlike Romney's "National Council for a New America," Free Republic is a conservative site!

Free Republic is a conservative site. That does not necessarily mean it is a Republican site. In fact there may be many Republicans we don't support and some Republican issues we cannot agree with.

I'll throw in Arlen Specter as a prime example of a Republican we cannot support. Should be obvious to all why not. Should also be just as obvious to all that we cannot support Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and his lap dog Lindsay Graham, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, et al.

Some of the issues we cannot support as conservatives even though sometimes initiated by so-called Republicans include TARP, or any kind of government bailout of private enterprise, federal intrusion into free markets, federalized education systems, government provided or controlled health care systems, abortion, gay marriage, amnesty, global warming, gun control, etc.

I guess there is more than one definition of conservatism floating around out there, and this won't be text book, but the one we use involves defending, preserving and protecting our constitution, our unalienable rights, our traditional family values, our American heritage, our nation, our borders and our sovereignty.

We aggressively defend our rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness!

We aggressively defend our rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to keep and bear arms, right to due process, right to equality under the law, right to be governed under the rule of law, right to constitutionally limited government, right to corruption free government, right to self-government and our private property rights, etc.

We also aggressively defend our right to state and local government for all issues not expressly delegated to the central government by the constitution.

We aggressively defend our rights to free markets and our rights to live our lives free of government intrusion, interference, coercion, force, or abuse of any kind.

We aggressively defend our rights to national sovereignty, state sovereignty and individual sovereignty!

And this definition also includes aggressively fighting against all enemies foreign and domestic who may try to deprive us of our rights or sovereignty. This would obviously include all foreign enemies, but also we defend against RINOS, Democrats, liberals, socialists, Marxists, communists, militant feminists or homosexualists, radical environmentalists, etc, etc, etc.

And we expect our elected representatives to also aggressively defend our rights and fight against all enemies foreign and domestic. We do not elect people and send them to DC or our state capitals, etc, to reach across the aisles or to be bipartisan or to negotiate or compromise away our rights. If you're not going to aggressively fight for us, and for our rights, STAY OUT!!

Just like his stance on abortion was in the past. Romney was pro-abort as recently as 1994. That was not a lifetime ago. Not even close. [Library User]

No. Romney was solidly pro-abortion through most of 2004...even filling out pro-abortion candidate questionnaires in the 2002 campaign for MA guv. [He wouldn't have been elected in the Bay State otherwise] Beyond that, he supposedly converted in late 2004 -- only to say at a late May press conference 4 yrs ago: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice."

Ya wanna explain how somebody making a supposed "pro-life conversion" half a year prior to this would make this statement?

Everyone has the right to change their mind, and I applaud Mitt on his change in his stance on abortion. [D Rider]

And Romney changes it, and then changes it again; and then changes it again; and then changes it again...

THE FLiP-FLoP SIDE OF MITT

(1): "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, says the Concord Monitor in a previous article to the one that's being posted. (Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98) = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?"

(2): 1994 campaign in Massachusetts "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent

(3): Fast forward to 2001, when Romney needs to reassure Utah Mormons that...he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?)

(4): But by 2002, guess what? He was pro-abortion again! "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again?

(5): In November of '04, he & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" where he links it to stem cell research = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert? )

(6): On May 27 '05, he affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!

(7): What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt THEN says his actions were ALL “pro-life.” So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were so pro-life decisions. ("As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.") = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine

(8): April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).

(9): On January 29, 2007 during a visit to South Carolina, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?

(10): Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering that "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life!

(11): "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"

(12): Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = That whatever he was from 1970 when his mom ran as a pro-abortion senator & he sided with her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion inlook or outlook 'cause he didn't ”feel...pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?

So, by now, you'd think we might be done with the twisty, windy road of Mitt Romney's “sanctity of life” quote track record. But, no, 'cause we gotta look at the very issue that Romney said converted him to a “pro-life” position – embryonic stem cell research. And on that, he took three positions over 5.5 years. He was for it in a June, '02 speech. He supposedly "converted" to the entire pro-life cause over this issue in Nov of '04. By Dec of '07 he was telling Katie Couric that he was pro-choice on parents of such embryos exercising either the choice to give up their surplus embryo(s) for adoption, or to "donate" them to "research" (dissection).

In that Dec 07 interview with Couric, in two back-to-back sentences, he uses the terms "parent" and "adoption" to apply to embryos – which sounds very “pro-life”and commendable....only in the next sentence he uses the following terms without seeing any contradiction:
"parent"
"donate"
"research"
He actually said parents of these adoptable embryos who “donated” them to “research” (dissection) was "acceptable."

“Always remember, though, Democrats are like dogs. Unless you convert them they will return to their vomit. We are at such a time in our history. Someone forgot to tame the new Catholic Democrats and convert them into Real Catholic Republicans. There’s a counterpart problem in Mormon territory as well ~ the Mormon Democrat. They’ve got enough of them around to ruin the chance of a real Conservative to win. Someone has to go after those people and convert them ~ it wasn’t just enough to turn ‘em into Mormons (SEE: Mormon, Baptist, War in the Intermountain) ~ they had to be brought over all the way.

We also forgot to convert the Coal Country Democrats back into Republicans ~ they’re still Conservative enough, but we lost them several decades back. They’re worth some work.”

Thank you for not giving up on the Republican party in mass. Some here are doing that. I say to advocate the death of the Republican party will consign us to the Ds and then two 20% parties that will never beat the Ds for 50 to 75 years...is that what we want? If I’m wrong then tell me why history supports this? Also, talk to me about winner takes all elections. We need to have a two pronged strategy (at least) to bring Conservatives back. That does not include killing the Republican party (mostly because we can’t and that because of history and the political structure of the country.)

I know I’m sounding like a broken record at the moment - but those blasting the Rs with full phaser to kill force - really need to think through their strategy - that is - if they have a strategy - to bring Conservatism back to power.

There should be room for A MINUTE amount of tolerance. I am 58, voted for Nixon in 72 and straight on from there. I don’t agree with anything much McCain or his daughter have to say. Duncan Hunter has as much chance becoming president as I do. You would be HYPOCRITICAL now for banging anyone else for freedom of speech, since you are hell bent on not letting me have mine without being attacked. [libbylu]

So this FREEPER can't tolerate Jim's opinion -- an opinion stated in the very thread and wasn't even personally aimed @ this poster? And this is then interpreted as some sort of personal "attack?"

This reminds me of the Dixie Chicks after they spoke out vs. the President on foreign soil. Of course, the DC have the right to support or not support who they wanted. But then, when people also started exercising their economic rights -- to support or not support who they wanted in response (in this case the D.Cs)...all of sudden, what was good for the 'Chicks on foreign soil wasn't good for their ex-fans on American soil...suddenly that was interpreted as a personal attack.

'Tis always so funny to watch the tolerance citers exercise their intolerance of free expression; and somehow 'tis OK to critique others in a personal way -- like Libbylu did -- but if somebody dares says anything interpreted as negative toward their pet candidates, look out, they've somehow been personally under fire.

(I just don't get it)

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.