I may agree with you on many of your litany of past Romney "sins," though I am not sure of his motives. My point goes to the fact that he has good analytic abilities, when he focuses on something. The point of the point is that we need to get him to focus on the actual social implications of some of the issues that are important to us--to appeal to his analytic ability, rather than keep insulting the man.
Look! The ideological landscape in America has been terribly distorted by the antics of a Leftist Academia & Leftist media for the past half century. Unless we persuade a lot of people, not just Romney, to rethink what has been pounded into their psychology by the endless Leftist rant on a wide variety of subjects, we are going to lose everything we value. We have to better hone our ability to persuade. Working on Romney's perspective--what he actually focuses on--politely, persistently, and persuasively, will, if nothing else, better train our techniques of persuasion.
Just what do we have to lose?
Take the Boy Scouts, for an example. Romney does not hate the Scouts for their stand--unlike the Leftists to whom you compare him. He merely reflects the contrived bias in favor of wider acceptance of homosexual behavior, in thinking them suitable as Scout Leaders. Of course, they are not! The reasons include the religious principles that are important to many further right than Romney; but they also include the whole implied purpose of the Boy Scouts--to train boys to be honorable men. How can you do that by giving them role models, who reject the normal honorable male role; both Biblical, but also societal in general, throughout Western History. (Boy Scouts Of America & Leftwing Agenda.)
Can Romney be persuaded? I do not know; but if all the people now damning him were to appeal to him as an honorable husband & father, on this basis, would he simply ignore the call to reconsider the idea that open homosexuals are suitable as Scout Masters--or as adoptive parents. Considering his Conservative approach to some economic issues--and his respect for State Rights, which some of his detractors now ignore; I do not believe that he would. But, again, we do not lose by trying.
As for Obama Care? How many times does he have to say that he will get it repealed!
William Flax
“I may agree with you on many of your litany of past Romney “sins,” though I am not sure of his motives. My point goes to the fact that he has good analytic abilities, when he focuses on something. The point of the point is that we need to get him to focus on the actual social implications of some of the issues that are important to us—to appeal to his analytic ability, rather than keep insulting the man.”
You are rationalizing, not being rational. What good are “analytic abilities” when not married to a solid moral grounding? They are good for nothing. Many an evil man has possessed “analytic abilities” and used them for ill purposes. Romney’s past actions indicates where his mind and heart really is. He will not change into something acceptable. It is irrational (and naive) to think he will.
I WILL continue to insult Romney because he deserves to be insulted and hounded by conservatives.