Posted on 08/08/2012 5:35:12 AM PDT by IbJensen
LAS VEGAS, August 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Mitt Romney’s decision not to condemn mayors threatening to deny Chick-fil-A the right to do business was a missed opportunity and may cost him votes in November, a growing chorus of social conservatives warn.
Last Friday in Las Vegas, when a reporter asked the Republican presidential nominee about the controversy over Chick-fil-A and charges about a diplomat’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, he replied, “Those are not things that are part of my campaign.”
After company president Dan Cathy said he supported Biblical marriage, homosexual organizations called for a boycott, and several prominent Democratic mayors threatened to withhold permits for the Christian business to operate in their cities. The fast food chain broke sales records during the August 1 “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” called by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
Christian radio talk show host Bryan Fischer asked, “Well, governor, exactly what was not a part of your campaign? The part about natural marriage? The part about freedom of religion? The part about freedom of speech? The part about freedom of entrepreneurship? What? If you will not publicly stand for those values, what will you stand for?” These questions were echoed by talk show host Mark Levin.
“Social conservatives have to make up their mind whether they should just simply stay at home, or go out there and vote for Romney,” Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said. “I’m astonished that he couldn’t even come to grips with the question. Leaving gays out of it, do we want the chief executives, the mayors of large cities trying to intimidate, using the power of government against private enterprises whose politics they disagree with? I think it’s a pretty simple issue.”
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
Several conservative writers confessed to being flummoxed by Romney’s absence, calling it a “missed opportunity.”
“I don’t understand why Mitt Romney doesn’t just get his Secret Service detail and take his press corps down to a Chicken-fil-A and show solidarity with these people,” said columnist and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. “It’s instinct. Reagan would have walked right on down there naturally.”
To excite the party’s base, Richard Viguerie, a conservative activist for more than 50 years, has suggested the GOP invite Dan Cathy to address the Republican National Convention. “Republicans should oblige President Obama’s desire to make same-sex marriage a central issue in the November election, and campaign unequivocally as the party of the traditional values Dan Cathy stood for,” Viguerie wrote.
Even prominent members of the party’s neoconservative wing, which has little time for social issues and generally supports the homosexual lobby, encouraged Romney to stop at Chick-fil-A. “Didn’t happen,” wrote Bill Kristol.
Some supporters of same-sex “marriage” have defended the beleaguered chicken chain.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a social liberal who considered running against Romney as an independent presidential candidate, said “it’s inappropriate for a city government or a state government or the federal government to look at somebody’s political views and decide whether or not they can live in the city or operate a business in the city or work for somebody in the city.”
Congressman Barney Frank, who recently “married” his boyfriend, agreed, “I don’t think government should discriminate against Chick-fil-A because of the views of the owner.”/
Even Antoine Dodson, the flamboyantly homosexual subject of a viral video, has said, “A lot of people from the gay community was [sic] actually telling me not to eat at Chick-fil-A and then you know, I started having these flashbacks, because I started believing like, the gay community — we have went [sic] from being bullied to becoming bullies,” he said. “And I don’t think that that is fair, because I’m like, aren’t we like in America? Like, we have freedom of speech.”
“I don’t think it’s American,” he said.
you of course entitled to any opinion.... (At least for now)
you are not entitled to criticize a process that you are not taking part in.... your opinion is marginalized in that you refuse to take a stand to work for what you believe.
Good luck standing in the middle touting your values.
I’m sure someone from the democratic party will thank you.
I am taking part - I am just not willing to vote for your liberal Republican. And you are not the judge of what I am entitled to do.
your opinion is marginalized in that you refuse to take a stand to work for what you believe.
That's really funny (hilarious, even) coming out of a supposed conservative, whom one would hope, embraces the conservatism espoused by this site, but who is supporting a baby-killing, gun-grabbing, homo-loving, globalist and flaming liberal. But then, perhaps you are merely a Republican - There are plenty here who confuse being a Republican with being a Conservative.
Good luck standing in the middle touting your values.
Thanks, but I am not in the middle... I am far to the right, and right where I belong... Working for, and endorsing folks who believe as I do. I wonder if you can say the same... Do you believe in the values that Romney represents?
Honestly I do not know what your problem is, how many ways can I say it - I DO NOT want Obama to be president.
Got it.
Then act like it... and campaign against Obama not against Romney.
Romer - you are a person squarely in the middle of the process, not willing to take a stand because your guy didn’t get picked.
You are the type person Judge Roberts was talking about..... if you don’t choose wisely someone else will. And if you can’t work within the process you’re really not much good anyone and have marginalized yourself.
Lastly, as I said before the democrats will appreciate you not voting against their guy....
I will not be staying home, but I am not voting for Romney.
You have fallen into two liberal traps. I will clarify the points:
a. The Constitution is the center of US Politics, not the right.
b. It’s either Obama or Romney. Period. The liberals are encouraging (and loving) this anti-Romney discourse. It smells of Jeremiah Wright’s influence.
I appreciate your honorable stance on these ‘two’ candidates, but I just don’t think at my age I can stomach, or live through four more years of this freaking Bozo!
The Supreme Court comes to mind, among a volume of other issues. Mitty might be more apt to nominate a conservative than the marxist-muslim asshat would.
Our society can’t take any more hits from the denizen of the White Hut.
This brings up the question as to why do the Elite Republican Party wish for four more years of omama and the answer is simple. They view this as an opportunity to destroy both the Conservative Movement and the TEA [Taxed Enough Already] Party movement, both of whom they despise. Should Romney somehow win, they will take it, but the plan is to give obama four more years and by then the GOP and Democrats will be just two flavors of the same brand: Socialism.
I understand your feeling.
That is utter incomprehensible thinking revolving around an obsession over one single person (Romney). To say that you consider Romney a worse risk than Obama is beyond all hope of reasoning and logic to even continue debating the point. Like Rush said, "you people are not on the same page as I am". May you find some comfort and happiness (in some way) come this November.
Here's a nice round up of Alinsky tactics that at least partly explains the demoralisers.
I do not campaign for liberals, if you want to go ahead.
I don’t need you to write my lines, thank heavens.
I’m not voting for Romney. You may vote for a pro-gay pro-abort liar who introduced socialized medicine in his state, and you may even call yourself a conservative while you do it, but you are a Romney supporter and you’d deserve what you’d get if he won.
If he does not win, obama will turn the nation to ashes. And if there should be a phoenix in those ashes, it’ll be no thanks to surrender monkeys who were willing to vote for Romney.
Accepting whatever the GOP serves you, is a lot like keeping a dead spouse in your home because you can’t bear to face reality and bury them. The conservative spirit has flown; it’s not in there; you’re propping up a stinking corpse. Time to let go.
Excellent find. So true.
Oh snap and so true.
Unfortunately, that type of thinking is from those who hope to be shot last. Four more years of Obama and those members of the GOPe who plan to survive had better join the Obama central committee.
It's a shame that you (and others) would be willing to sacrifice more angst for our country - even at the point of turning our "nation to ashes" solely for the fact that you can't come to terms with a candidate's change in his position towards the conservative position, and the 'hope' that there arises some unknown "phoenix" to ultimately save the day.
All I can say is that if everyone else on our side had your exact same way of thinking, it would most assuredly guarantee that our nation would turn into ashes!
You really think you can believe a politician? And a politician running for POTUS? And his name is Willard Mitt Romney?
The shame is on you. In the old days you’d have been shaved as a collaborator.
With your ‘collaborator’ comment, you remind of the ‘political police’ currently residing in a country 90 miles from our shores!
Your “collaborator” comments only set to marginalize yourself from the majority of conservatives who want more to save their country from a scheming Socialist than worry about the “former” positions of an individual candidate.
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.