Posted on 03/12/2006 11:02:47 AM PST by RWR8189
Try reading the second amendment.
It has nothing to do with abortion.
I hesitate to raise this, but it will be a significant factor if he runs: Romney is a member of the Mormon church. And, of course, there's nothing wrong with that. Except the media and the Dems will kill him with it. That's a fact.
In addition, Romney's position on abortion is perhaps too slippery to satisfy many conservatives.
Funny. The response wasn't in reference to you, it was in reference to this board in general. But, if you want to discuss the second amendment, fine, throw that in there too. Personally, I see taxes and economic policy as much more important than even that issue. It's about priorities, and placing social issues above economic ones isn't the right way to do it. We did that in 2000 and we wound up with George Bush.
Dear SunnyD1182,
You sorta got it right. Mr. Romney isn't a social conservative. In fact, he's something of a social liberal (or at least, has a somewhat confusing record that gives folks of every stripe the ability to either identify with him or dislike him).
Anyway, social conservatives make up about 40% of the Republican Party. You can't win only with social conservatives, but you can't win without them. Folks who suggest that the Republican Party nominate social liberals are telling the party to walk away from a large part of its base, its coalition.
sitetest
If we get one more Bush in the White House I'm going to start taking hostages.
:-)
I will not be able to vote for someone that is going to support attempts to restrict my firearms ownership.
I should have read all the posts before asking about Allens 2nd Amendment stance.
Allen is one of the best debaters around. He is very charismatic and intelligent. And as I heard one conservative commentator put it "he has the ability to say offensive things but non-offensively." It other words, he can talk like a conservative without turning off independents (who decide elections).
The RINO talk on this board is unbelievable. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if some of these people are liberals trying to stir up hatred amoung the different factions that make up the GOP.
I can undertand someone calling John McCain, Chuck Hagel or Olympia Snow a RINO, but I've heard people call George Allen, Jeb Bush and Bill Frist RINO's. Pleaseeeeeee people....
Does this sound like a social liberal?
One Man, One Woman
A citizen's guide to protecting marriage.
BY MITT ROMNEY
Thursday, February 5, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
No matter how you feel about gay marriage, we should be able to agree that the citizens and their elected representatives must not be excluded from a decision as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage. There are lessons from my state's experience that may help other states preserve the rightful participation of their legislatures and citizens, and avoid the confusion now facing Massachusetts.
In a decision handed down in November, a divided Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts detected a previously unrecognized right in our 200-year-old state constitution that permits same-sex couples to wed. I believe that 4-3 decision was wrongly decided and is deeply mistaken.
Contrary to the court's opinion, marriage is not "an evolving paradigm." It is deeply rooted in the history, culture and tradition of civil society. It predates our Constitution and our nation by millennia. The institution of marriage was not created by government and it should not be redefined by government.
Marriage is a fundamental and universal social institution. It encompasses many obligations and benefits affecting husband and wife, father and mother, son and daughter. It is the foundation of a harmonious family life. It is the basic building block of society: The development, productivity and happiness of new generations are bound inextricably to the family unit. As a result, marriage bears a real relation to the well-being, health and enduring strength of society.
Because of marriage's pivotal role, nations and states have chosen to provide unique benefits and incentives to those who choose to be married. These benefits are not given to single citizens, groups of friends, or couples of the same sex. That benefits are given to married couples and not to singles or gay couples has nothing to do with discrimination; it has everything to do with building a stable new generation and nation.
It is important that the defense of marriage not become an attack on gays, on singles or on nontraditional couples. We must recognize the right of every citizen to live in the manner of his or her own choosing. In fact, it makes sense to ensure that essential civil rights, protection from violence and appropriate societal benefits are afforded to all citizens, be they single or combined in nontraditional relationships.
So, what to do?
• Act now to protect marriage in your state. Thirty-seven states--38 with recent actions by Ohio--have a Defense of Marriage Act. Twelve states, including Massachusetts, do not. I urge my fellow governors and all state legislators to review and, if necessary, strengthen the laws concerning marriage. Look to carefully delineate in the acts themselves the underlying, compelling state purposes. Explore, as well, amendments to the state constitution. In Massachusetts, gay rights advocates in years past successfully thwarted attempts to call a vote on a proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. This cannot happen again. It is imperative that we proceed with the legitimate process of amending our state constitution.
• Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislature's job to pass laws. As governor, it is my job to carry out the laws. The Supreme Judicial Court decides cases where there is a dispute as to the meaning of the laws or the constitution. This is not simply a separation of the branches of government, it is also a balance of powers: One branch is not to do the work of the other. It is not the job of judges to make laws, the job of legislators to command the National Guard, or my job to resolve litigation between citizens. If the powers were not separated this way, an official could make the laws, enforce them, and stop court challenges to them. No one branch or person should have that kind of power. It is inconsistent with a constitutional democracy that guarantees to the people the ultimate power to control their government.
With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That's wrong.
• Act at the federal level. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. Sometimes we forget that the ultimate power in our democracy is not in the Supreme Court but rather in the voice of the people. And the people have the exclusive right to protect their nation and constitution from judicial overreaching.
People of differing views must remember that real lives and real people are deeply affected by this issue: traditional couples, gay couples and children. We should conduct our discourse with decency and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is not a matter of semantics; it will have lasting impact on society however it is ultimately resolved. This issue was seized by a one-vote majority of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. We must now act to preserve the voice of the people and the representatives they elect.
Mr. Romney is governor of Massachusetts.
Here's my take on the Republican candidates:
Mitt Romney. A pretty boy from a political family with one term as a lame-duck governor of Massachusetts under his belt. He could say he was never really pro-abortion, but he is still too Northern and Mormon to win Southern primaries.
Bill Frist. Has "wimp" written all over his face. Sounds like an old geezer when he speaks. However, he's not as bad a Senate leader as some think, as he used the threat of the nuclear option to keep the Rats from filibustering Alito. Still, too boring.
John McCain. Loser.
Mike Huckabee. Big-spending Bush clone. Tried to get his wife elected. (Shades of Bill and Hill.) If he wore a flannel, he might lock up the Bubba vote, but he's too light to be national.
Haley Barbour. I think this guy could win the nomination. He would instantly appeal to anyone who likes fried chicken, alligator-wrestling, monster trucks, and drinking Wild Turkey out of the bottle, but he's refined enough to appeal to the masses. Also, he would immediately get the nod of the D.C. lobbyists who seem to have a vice-grip on the GOP these days.
Condi Rice. STOP. Unless she comes out against abortion and poses with a hunting rifle, forget it!
Cheney. If he ran, he'd get the Second Amendment crowd, that's for sure.
Rudy Giuliani. Definitely running for something. Has to have a colossal ego to think he could win a GOP primary after speaking at a NARAL event!
Tom Tancredo. A one-trick pony.
Tommy Franks. How about a Barbour/Franks ticket?
Forgive me if I'm leaving someone out.
Alot of merit in your analysis. One of the best I've seen so far.
One thing: One-trick ponies can go a long ways if they happen to know the right trick! :-)
Dear slowhand520,
On the preeminent issue for social conservatives, Mr. Romney has been wrong. I've read that he's now trying to change his public position on abortion, but he seems to have sent, at best, mixed messages. In the past, he has affirmed a woman's "right to choose," announcing that though he is "personally opposed," he believes that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." Where have I heard that before??
In the past, he's endorsed the legalization of RU-486, referred to women's legal ability to kill their babies as "abortion RIGHTS," and states that his views on the legality of abortion come from having a relative die from an illegal abortion. He has also said that he thinks that each state should decide whether to fund Medicaid abortions.
Even in trying to move from the pro-death to the pro-life camps, he referred to his former allies as "pro-choice," making many (including myself) wonder whether he was betraying his true feelings.
Although Mr. Romney is against homosexual marriage, per se, he is otherwise in favor of "rights" for homosexuals, including the equivalent of spousal benefits for homosexuals. He prefers that the Boy Scouts admit openly homosexual folks, although he accepts that the Boy Scouts have a right to bar homosexuals.
On education, he seems to be pretty good, pushing for means-tested vouchers (better than nothing, but not the whole nine yards), and the elimination of the federal Department of Education (Yay!).
It appears to me that he's tried to hew a moderate position on social issues. I think of him as the "Chinese Menu" social issue candidate - a little from Column A, a little from Column B.
In that he's far to the left of social conservatives on our first and foremost issue, and kind of squishy on other issues important to us, I don't think that he can turn out the social conservative part of the party's base. He's not quite the catastrophe that Mr. Giuliani would be, but Mr. Romney would nonetheless lose the general election.
sitetest
Dear Holden Magroin,
I could go with Haley Barbour. I don't know if he's got the right stuff to get through the primaries and general election, but that's what nomination fights are made to find out!
sitetest
You know, you might consider Mike Pence. I don't know much about him, not even sure if I spelled his name correctly. But, dog gone it, he sure LOOKS like a President.
"If the Democrats are busy assessing the competition, and I think they are, I suspect Allen is the one they most fear these days, not McCain."
GEORGE ALLEN HAS BEEN UNDERESTIMATED EVER SINCE HE ENTERED POLITICS, SMART DEMS KNOW THIS. HERE'S A BRIEF LOOK AT HIS POLITCAL CAREER SO FAR:
"Pre-Governor career
Allen began his political career as a Republican member of the Virginia House of Delegates from 1983 to 1991, representing a district in Albemarle County. On November 5, 1991, he won a special election to fill the seat in the U.S. House of Representatives for Virginia's 7th District, the former home district of the Byrd family dynasty. Incumbent congressman D. French Slaughter, Jr. had resigned due to a series of strokes.
Allen's career in the House was short-lived, however. In the 1990s round of redistricting, Allen's district, which stretched from the fringes of the Washington suburbs to Charlottesville and included much of the Shenandoah Valley, was eliminated even though Virginia gained a congressional seat as a result of the 1990 Census. This came because the Justice Department required Virginia to draw a majority-black district in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act. His district was split between three neighboring districts. While his home in Earlysville (a suburb of Charlottesville) was placed in the 5th District of Louis F. Payne, Jr., most of his district was placed in the 10th District of Frank Wolf. Allen moved to Mount Vernon and prepared to challenge Wolf in a primary, but Virginia Republican figures made it known that he would have no future in the party by waging such a challenge. Allen was therefore forced to leave the House in 1993.
Governor
In 1993 Allen was elected the 67th Governor of Virginia, serving from 1994 to 1998. As governor, he was recognized for educational improvements such as the implementation of rigorous academic standards and accountability. His tenure also included the overhaul of the juvenile justice system, work-oriented welfare reform and the abolition of parole for felons. Virginia, especially Northern Virginia, boomed during this time period, particularly in the technology area. Allen has been criticized by liberal groups for alleged insensitivity to racial problems during his term. In 1997, he proclaimed April as Confederate History and Heritage Month and called the Civil War "a four-year struggle for independence and sovereign rights." [1]
Allen could not run for re-election because Virginia's constitution does not allow a governor to succeed himself; as of 2006 Virginia is the only state that has such a provision.
United States Senate
Allen was elected to the Senate in 2000, defeating the Democratic incumbent, Chuck Robb, son-in-law of the late President Lyndon B. Johnson. He is a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
Allen was appointed in the last Congress to serve as the chairman of the High Tech Task Force. Allen was unanimously elected as a member of the Senate Republican leadership as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002, and oversaw a net gain of four seats for the Republicans in the 2004 Senate elections. His successor as NRSC chair is Senator Elizabeth Dole.
In June of 2005, Allen co-sponsored a resolution that had the Senate formally apologize for never passing federal legislation despite the lynching of nearly 5,000 people between 1882 and 1968. While spearheading this apology, Allen stood in the Senate and said, "I rise today to offer a formal and heartfelt apology to all the victims of lynching in our history, and for the failure of the United States Senate to take action when action was most needed."
pence08.com
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.