Posted on 03/18/2007 10:40:22 AM PDT by Unmarked Package
In any church, the person who does the most work and is most dedicated to the cause is the convert or the prodigal member who has come back to faith. Have a meeting and he will come . . . ask for help and he is there. In short order, the convert is soon a leader . . . often blowing past more stable older brothers who have become a bit tired in their dedication to the cause.
It sometimes causes resentment in the older brothers, but the prodigal who returns often makes the best new leader. Nobody has to tell them the value of Father’s house . . . and nobody has to worry that they will be seduced by the other side. They have eaten pig food and don’t want to go back!
Good churches also attract friends and allies that are not members, could never be members, but who help it talk to the outside world.
These allies can never join or lead the church, but keep it from becoming cult-like and too insulated.
I believe in the power of the convert . . . and am always looking for allies. What applies to a church or club also is true in politics . . . and in this race we are blessed with one candidate who is a very attractive social conservative prodigal son and a liberal ally both of whom want the Republican nomination.
We are also stuck with an older brother whose main reason for running seems to be that he has run before and feels due.
Far from worrying about our prodigal Romney who has come home to social conservative values . . . I worry about him least on these issues.
Why? Romney has over time come to traditional points of view on culture of life and family issues. This is not surprising given his religious and social background. Romney is a man of profound faith (though it is not my own) and of deep and abiding traditional values in his personal life. As he has grown older, it is no surprise that a maturing statesman would bring his personal life into closer consistency with his political life.
Romney has the zeal of a new convert tempered by the pragmatic wisdom of one who knows the strengths and weaknesses of his old views.
Even on pragmatic grounds, the convert can be trusted more than the older member. He cannot afford to switch again without looking like a disaster and will work hard to keep his new allies.
The prodigal Romney has come back to his conservative roots having tried to eat the pig food of Harvard and the secular left. I am not going to be an older brother who sniffs when he is invited to the party. . . and if he is given the fatted calf of the nomination . . .well every analogy breaks down at some point!
His main foe for the nomination does not even pretend to agree with traditional religious folk. He is an ally in many ways . . . and a noble pagan. . . the guy who might have kept the prodigal safe when far from Father’s house, but not a member of the team.
Rudy is a great, though flawed man. He has a personal life that is beyond a mess . . . and that most Americans do not know about yet. When queried whether they will support a person with three (count-them) divorces, a big majority say “no.” Most Americans don’t know his views on gay marriage, abortion, or gun control, and these issues are as big as Iraq to Republican primary voters. If he gets the nomination, we can expect a prolonged investigation into finances that have in the past looked confusing at best.
I like Rudy . . . and admire him on many levels. I would love to see him as an attorney general chasing the Mob or Terrorists. He is a liberal of the old school . . . willing to work with conservatives for the good of the nation. We need more liberals like him, but he is a liberal and the Republican party is the conservative party in America.
Rudy is a friend of the conservative movement . . . and an ally, but he should not lead that movement. The Romans were finished when they picked Germans to lead them . . . and the Republicans do not need a friendly foe to head their cause.
Romney, the social conservative convert, has the friends, traditional back ground, and pragmatic political will needed to stick to his new found positions. He is also a highly skilled communicator without Rudy’s temper . . . and has been a successful governor of a blue state.
Conservatives may dream of the perfect candidate. I often ponder some person with the mind of Burke, the communication skills of Reagan, and the back bone of George W. Bush . . . but this man or woman does not exist so far as I know.
There is seldom room in a primary season for more than three viable candidates. Like it or not, the choice is Rudy, Romney, or the Retread. McCain is too tired to win . . . the Bob Dole of this race. It seems better at this point to trust the Prodigal Convert over the noble Ally.
This is a very good essay. While I'm still leaning somewhat toward Rudy, it's an intelligent perspective on both him and Romney. One of the best things I've seen on the campaign.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he force Catholic hospitals to carry "emergency contraception"?
Romney has a sterling resume, I'll certainly give him that. But I now find myself disagreeing with him on core principle.
Mitt Romney's conversion to a public pro-life stance is not as dramatic a switch as many of his critics would have us believe. There is a trail of evidence to follow with Romney on this issue.
Romney had solid conservative positions in campaign issues in 1994 with the exception of his pledge to maintain the status quo in Massachusetts regarding a woman's right to choose. A pro-choice position in Massachusetts in 1994 was a socially moderate stance accommodating the large majority opinion of voters in the state. In hindsight it was wrong, but it's understandable how a conservative, first-time candidate in the liberal state of MA in 1994 running a crusade for fiscal conservatism with solid conservative positions on issues of crime, welfare, foreign policy, healthcare, and congressional reform might accept the status quo on a social issue respecting the liberal constituency he would represent.
More importantly, there is evidence that Romney held pro-life views in his private life in 1994 and before. In his role in private life as a Mormon lay leader (Ward Bishop and Stake President), Romney counseled women not to have abortions.
(A Primary Factor, NRO, December 14, 2006)
Mitt Romney received the endorsement of an anti-abortion group, Massachusetts Citizens For Life, in his Republican primary race for the 1994 Senate election.
(Anti-abortion group endorses Romney bid, Boston Herald, September 8, 1994)
In an ironic twist from Romney's conservative critics today, in 1994 it was an abortion rights group, Mass Choice, who accused Romney of exaggerating his pro-choice views.
(Abortion-rights group rips Romney, Boston Herald, September 10, 1994)
The influence of family members and events in Mitt Romney's life on matters of abortion are worth considering. They emphasize obstacles he surmounted to adopt pro-life beliefs in his private life. Mitt Romney’s mother, Lenore Romney, advocated a pro-choice position in her unsuccessful 1970 run for the U.S. Senate in Michigan, writing in her campaign platform, "I support and recognize the need for more liberal abortion rights while reaffirming the legal and medical measures needed to protect the unborn and pregnant woman [sic]." Mitt Romney revealed in 1994 that his brother-in-law's sister, a close family friend, died after a botched illegal abortion in the 1960s when Mitt would have been in his teens and early 20s.
(Romney releases mother's statement on abortion issue, Boston Globe, June 28, 2005.)
Romney freely admits now that he was wrong to accommodate a public pro-choice, status quo stance and has changed his position on this issue to a public pro-life stance reflecting his long-held personal beliefs. The issue of human embryonic stem cell research and the ghoulish specter of human embryo farming was the last straw to unplug him from an uneasy commitment to the liberal voters of Massachusetts.
Geven his own military record, that of his dad and his five husky sons...I'll give GEN Pace the benefit of the doubt. As regards presidential candidates and their views on homosexuality, it was Ronald Reagan who implemented the "We Ask, Don't Join" policy which worked quite well.
This is an interesting way to look at it.
Dear Unmarked Package,
"Romney had solid conservative positions in campaign issues in 1994 with the exception of his pledge to maintain the status quo in Massachusetts regarding a woman's right to choose."
Lie.
Pure baloney. In describing Mr. Romney's pro-abort position in terms of "accommodating" the "status quo," one gives the impression that Mr. Romney was really a pro-lifer who was willing to leave alone pro-abort laws in order to be elected.
That's false.
Mr. Romney informed us in 1994 that he was a PRINCIPLED pro-abort, and had been a pro-abort since at least 1970, as a result of the death of a "close relative" from a botched illegal abortion.
He reiterated his PRINCIPLED pro-abort stance in 2002 when he said that the substance of Roe was correct, that there is a CONSTITUTIONAL right for a woman to procure the murder of her unborn child.
That's wildly different from being a pro-lifer willing to let stand the status quo of abortion law.
I'm glad that Mr. Romney has repented of his crimes against humanity (if he's truly sincere - the jury's out on that one). But let's not permit him and his bots to distort the past. Although he was a moderate liberal on the question of abortion, he was nonetheless a principled pro-abort.
His "conversion" is a 180.
sitetest
First, let me give you the credentials for the source I will cite to answer your question. I think it's important to know who is making the response:
David French is a Harvard Law School graduate and a leading constitutional attorney with the non-profit Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). David is a First Lieutenant in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the United States Army Reserve. The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal defense and advocacy group for religious freedom founded in 1994 by the leaders of more than 35 ministries, including Dr. James Dobson. ADF directly litigates carefully chosen, strategic cases to protect the freedom of religion, guard the sanctity of human life, and preserve marriage and traditional family values. The ADF is a major force opposing liberal activist groups such as the ACLU.Now, in response to your question, David French responds as follows (excerpted from the second to last paragraph of the cited article at bottom):David French co-founded EvangelicalsForMitt.org, an independent website dedicated to spreading awareness about Governor Mitt Romney among Christian conservatives. David and his wife, Nancy, have two children and live in Columbia, Tenn. where they attend Zion Presbyterian Church, a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America.
"And Steve's statement regarding "forcing" pro-life hospitals to provide the morning-after pill is off-base. State law--enacted by Democrats--forced the hospitals to provide the pill. Such a law can and should be challenged by the hospitals in court. The Governor does not have the standing (or constitutional ability) to mount such a challenge."
(A Comment from a Romney Opponent (or a "Pre-supporter?"), David French, Jan. 5, 2007 post at EvangelicalsForMitt.org)
Mr Giuliani accomplished a lot in as much liberal place. His earlier career was also outstanding. I do not like his views, but I respect his qualifications.
Romney merely agreed with what Pace had said himself about the original comment.
While they both agree with the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy and the reasons behind it, they both admit that Pace's personal opinions may have been better shared in a different capacity rather than as a general commanding gay troops in harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If he had made his comments as a scout leader or while leading a Bible study group they seem more than reasonable.
This is what Romney was agreeing with:
General Pace released a statement Tuesday saying,
"In expressing my support for the current policy, I also offered some personal opinions about moral conduct. I should have focused more on my support of the policy and less on my personal moral views."
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7006734081
People also conveniently forget what else Romney said on the gay issue during the same interview:
KING: Did you support gay marriage in Massachusetts?
M. ROMNEY: Never have. I oppose gay marriage and civil union, if it's equivalent to gay marriage. And the reason for that is not because I -- I don't want to show respect and tolerance for other people, but because marriage is primarily about the development and nurturing of children. And children deserve a mom and a dad.
So I -- I support traditional marriage and have probably been in the center -- the center of the battlefield on all important social issues in America over the last several years -- not only gay marriage, where I opposed gay marriage,
I'd prefer "Why a Conservative Should Beat the RINOs."
Of course, we're only supposed to pay attention to the details that are actually mentioned--if something is "outside the story" it doesn't exist.
"Rudy is a great, though flawed man. He has a personal life that is beyond a mess . . . and that most Americans do not know about yet. When queried whether they will support a person with three (count-them) divorces, a big majority say “no.” Most Americans don’t know his views on gay marriage, abortion, ... "
We need to have leaders who can lead by example.
There is no way that Rudy will be a serious defender of traditional marriage, nor can he credibly be so. Our social policies will be little different between Rudy and Hillary, imho. Romney can simply lead by example.
Still, we are in serious danger of being in a bad position politically. The Democrats have the House and Senate, and will not let that go. By 2009, we could have the perfect storm of Dems owning everything ... If we ignore the many things needed to get back to a real patriotic pro-freedom majority, we are gone anyway.
Romney will defend conservative principles that Rudy will not, so in my book he is acceptable and Rudy is not. But let us have some debates and see how it plays out.
Check out James Bopp column on Romney's actual positions on abortion. You only got part of the story.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWYwMzg3MzZkNDBmYzJhMGY5OTY5MjI3YTYxYzFkNDE=
All of those things existed in that time. Opium was used as a drug during that time. Drunkeness was a problem during that time. The soldiers gambled for Jesus's cloak. When Jesus talks about the use of money, He says to lay up treasure in heaven and not on earth where it can be destroyed by fire, flood, and pestilence. These warnings would have little value if investments didn't sometimes fail. Fraud wasn't invented in the modern era, and the chance that a young man flush with money and ego could fall easy victim to fraud is very plausible. Then as now, anyone willing to pay for food and drink can be surrounded by people who will pose as friends. If the food and drink are particularly expensive, more people will come to the party. When one is buying food and drink for a large number of people, money can be spent very quickly. There's nothing that Jesus said that would indicate that the younger brother actually hired prostitutes.
Of course, we're only supposed to pay attention to the details that are actually mentioned--if something is "outside the story" it doesn't exist.
This idea doesn't apply to this parable. The point of the parable was a rebuke of the older brother's attitude. Part of that bad attitude very easily may have been a mindset that saw the absolute worst in his younger brother and a willingness to make the absolute worst accusation even in the absence of any evidence. The older brother's exaggerating his accusations is more in keeping with the point of the parable than the notion his specific accusation must be an accurate description of the younger brother's mistakes.
Bill
Paradoxically I think that while "Rudy" is a little more liberal and with some personal problems he might be a good president. Why? Because he is competent and smart - as such he might take conservative positions when this will be reasonable and beneficial.
When you need a surgeon, do you prefer more conservative one or more skillful? To repeat again, I do not agree with Mr. Giuliani views.
Thanks for bringing forward that article, WOSG. I had forgotten about the content of that column pertaining to the question of Mitt Romney's personal beliefs on life issues in 1994 and 2002.
Romney asserts directly, and deliberately, in the 3/15/07 CNN Larry King Live interview (at 07:35 into the video) that he has always been personally pro-life. That squares with James Bopp's interpretation of where Romney stood in 1994 and 2002 in his personal life versus his public policy stance accommodating the pro-choice status quo with Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. I believe I've fairly represented Romney's account and I stand by it. If someone takes issue with the interpretation, they'll have to take it up with Mitt Romney.
An excerpt of the Larry King Live interview transcript appears below:
KING: Our guest is the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.His hat is in the ring for the Republican nomination for the presidency.
In 2002, on a NARAL -- N-A-R-A-L -- questionnaire, you said: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose."
You also told Planned Parenthood you supported the substance of "Roe v. Wade."
What changed?
M. ROMNEY: Well, you know, I've always been personally pro-life. But I've questioned what the role of government should be with regards to abortion. And in our state, we were having a debate about cloning, the creation of new embryos for purposes of harvesting stem cells. And as part of that discussion, I came to believe that if the people of a state want to enact pro-life, reasonable legislation, they ought to have the right to do so.
So my view is the right course is to allow states to make their own choice in this regard. And that makes me pro-life and I'm proud to be pro-life. I followed the same course in this regard and had the same education that both Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush had. They were pro-choice. They became pro-life. As they became leaders and they saw the impact of these decisions, they decided that life was the right course.
I agree with you in his early days he was a real conservative until he married that liberal Donna Handover!
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.