Thanks, Philly...
Jim Robinson posted on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:04:30 PM: “Ok, will run the videos on the threads for awhile or until we get tired of him.”
Thank you, Sir!
I haven't yet checked which videos you've posted, but based on what I've seen over the last couple of years, the words out of Romney's own mouth defending a pro-choice stance, especially pointing out to his Democratic opponent in the governor's race that his position was the same held by his family back in Michigan when they ran for office, are devastating.
Romney has done a lot of work to backtrack from the position that, in all fairness, probably had to be taken to mount a credible challenge to Sen. Kennedy in Massachusetts and then to win the governor's race.
A lot of people have forgotten what he said years ago or excuse it based on the political realities of one of our most liberal states. He now publicly says that he's changed his views. Okay, fair enough; people do change. Even Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat.
But this issue isn't like changing one’s mind on something else that is important about national policy like free trade or immigration — this involves outright murder of millions of babies. Where is the repentance?
I don't want to hear Romney just say, “I was wrong.” At an absolute minimum, I want him to say, “I have blood on my hands, thousands of babies died in my state and I did nothing, and I will have to answer to God for my sinful dereliction of duty. If elected president I will do everything I can to put an end to the babykilling, and here's my plan of specific steps I will take to win back the trust of people I betrayed by my actions in Massachusetts...”
That's not too much to ask that Romney say in public, and if Romney were in my church I'd demand considerably more in private to make sure the repentance is sincere and not merely mouthing words. The fact is that repentance right now would be politically convenient for Romney, and anytime repentance leads to material benefits, private pastoral conversations are appropriate to evaluate the sincerity of the words.
Of course, we're evaluating Romney's qualifications to be president, not to be a communicant member of a church, so our questions need to be focused on public acts because we can't evaluate his spiritual condition at a distance (apart from the obvious factor that he's in a cult group). We don't live in John Knox's Scotland, John Calvin's Geneva, or even Jonathan Edwards’ Massachusetts; the federal Constitution was deliberately written to bar religious tests for federal office, and therefore we need to deal with Romney's public positions.
The key problem is this: How do we know that just as Romney was saying what he needed to say to get elected in an ultra-liberal Democratic state, he isn't now saying what he needs to say to get through a Republican Party national primary? I have heard no satisfactory answer to that question.
What makes that truly dangerous is that if Romney manages to get nominated, he'll be under tremendous pressure to “tack left” in the general election. If Romney is willing to say whatever he needs to say to get elected and isn't acting based on core values, based on his own family history we have every reason to fear he'll drop the abortion issue like a hot potato once he no longer needs to satisfy conservatives.
Unless someone can show me I'm wrong, I can't accept Romney as the Republican nominee since he'll be responsible for nominating the Supreme Court justices who will decide the fate of millions of babies.
As Christian and other “social issues” conservatives, we are not yet in the position of our brothers and sisters in Europe where they routinely have to choose between the lesser of two evils. We can still demand that the Republican Party nominate candidates who are solidly committed to certain core Judeo-Christian principles on which this nation was founded.
At this point, I frankly don't know what I'll do if Romney or someone like him becomes the Republican nominee, and I want to do whatever I can to make clear to the Republican leadership that nominating someone who is weak on “social issues” is a recipe for electoral disaster and reelection of President Obama. I'm hoping the Republican majority will agree in the upcoming primaries and caucuses so we don't get into a situation of a split party in November 2012.
I agree that people can change, but they do need to convince us of how and why they did if we’re to trust them.
In the NH debates, I heard Romney say he was pro-life now, but it was a shallow, seemingly politically-expedient response. I didn’t have strong feelings myself on the issue until i took the time to educate myself more, but now i’m very outspoken to anyone who bring it up around me and think it really should be the most important subject that any politician talks about.
We’re approaching 4-5 times the high estimate of deaths during the holocaust, yet we’re equally as guilty as the german society of turning our backs and pretending it’s not there. The morality of the issue may be considered religious, but a purely medical and scientific look at it shows every abortion takes an innocent human life with a beating heart, brain waves, features, etc. - different than the Casey Anthony trial in the media circus only by in happening a couple years earlier.