Posted on 01/21/2008 4:45:42 PM PST by Romneyfor President2008
I was in El Paso, Texas over the Christmas holidays when a pastor and dear friend told me he had expected me to write something about the upcoming Pesidential elections, and particualrly about Mitt romney. I have actually been working on something on this for about 6 months, I have just not felt the time was right to share it. Well I now feel the tiem s right and here it is.
Let me say from the outset that these are my personal views and opinions, and are shared as such. They do not reflect upon any ministry or organization that I may be affiliated with. My views are also from a conservative or Evangelical Christian point of view.
In the Democratic Party we have 2 frontrunners and one candidate that will not quit while in the Republican Party we have 3 or 4 still battling it out. Of these seven leading candidates I have come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is the best overall candidate from the conservative and Evangelical point of view. I have also come to the conclusion that the only reason that a conservative Christian would have for not vote for Mitt Romney is his Mormon religion, and that is a legitimate concern. So how would I come to the conclusion that Gov. Romney is the best guy, especially since I studied cult apologetics, in seminary, under the late Dr. Walter Martin? For those who do not know or remember him, Dr. Martin was author of The Kingdom of the Cults, which is the bible of cult apologetics. He also founded and hosted the syndicated radio program The Bible answer Man. Oh, and Walter was also my Sunday School teacher for 2 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsblaze.com ...
Yes, Carnac, you know all things (sarc). (I thought mind reading was against the rules of posts)
I didn't read your mind. I read your POSTS (or should I say anti-Mormon screeds).
"the LDS are the ignoble of the earth!!!" - Colofornian, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1950542/posts?page=317#317
It is completely ABSURD to blur the line between Romney’s anti-amnesty and mcCain’s pro-amnesty positions. Romney made general statements about general ideas to fix immigration but never supported special paths to citizenship, and vigorously opposed the bills that the Senate produced. Romney immediately and specifically called out the Z visa blanket amnesty as a wrong policy and bad idea. McCain stubbornly supported it and still has not given up on that horrible idea!
NOBODY IN THE SENATE GOP SIDE IS WORSE ON IMMIGRATION THAN JOHN MCCAIN. NOBODY IN THE RACE IS *BETTER* ON IMMIGRATION THAN ROMNEY.
From June 2007 paper article:
“Romney, in outlining his immigration position, advocates three broad principles. He says he wants to secure the borders, establish a fraud-proof employee verification system, and offer no special residency or citizenship privileges to the estimated 12 million immi grants in the United States illegally. He objects to a provision in the current bill that would create a special “Z visa” allowing undocumented workers to remain in the United States and work legally.”
“Asked if Romney is going to put out a detailed immigration plan, his spokesman, Kevin Madden, said Romney “has made his immigration priorities clear: Secure the borders, implement an employee verification program with a tamper-proof biometric card, and no special pathway towards citizenship for those who broke immigration laws.”
Madden would not say specifically whether Romney would veto the Senate bill if he were president but said Romney “does not support the bill in its current form.””
“McCain, whose championing of immigration reform has hampered his courtship of conservatives, has also made that point in conference calls with the media and in a series of radio and TV interviews. And in a major speech on immigration Monday in South Florida, McCain will have tough words for critics such as Romney who haven’t proposed anything of their own, according to advisers.
“He will say that’s clearly not leadership, and by just taking shots at this . . . you’re making the country’s hardest problems harder to solve,” said one senior McCain adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the campaign had not yet finalized McCain’s remarks.”
“Romney has made his opposition to illegal immigration front and center in his campaign. In March, he traveled to Phoenix to celebrate the endorsement of Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff famous for rounding up immigrants in desert tents. He also touts actions he took as Massachusetts governor, such as vetoing a bill proposing in-state tuition rates for children of illegal immigrants, and implementing an agreement with the federal government under which State Police could enforce federal immigration laws.”
Wrong.
Both Mitt and Fred were for some sort of amnesty several years ago. Both are now campaigning against any kind of amnesty.
Both changed their position over a year ago.
Both now take the position that there should be no special pathways to anybody who has come here illegally.
I welcome them both to the right side.
What's this, then? You bring other issues up as post hoc rationalizations for your real ‘problem’ with Mitt.
You reduce my motivations to one thing. You speak to what my motivations are, as if your judgmentalism 100% sizes me up. You don't know my pro-life record. You know as well as I do that I've spoken out countless times against Romney the RINO on this as well as his pro-homosexual positions.
Cover up all you want for your fave candidate (you'd surprise us all if didn't). But you can't cover up your own rhetoric. Yes, I take responsibility for labeling LDS as "ignoble" because they flunk the Acts 17 test of searching the latter revelations by the previous revelations (Acts 17:11)...whereas Luke specificially calls the Bereans "noble" for doing so. (And thanks for the invite to share that). Character test for you: Let's see if you can take responsibility for your words & not cover up post #95: Were you, or were you not, judging my inward heart as having only one motivation for opposing a candidate?
Do you have a date and time and link to where he renounced his endorsement of the bush amnesty? Just like the lies put out by the Huck camp. Willard has no track record of leadership on the issue. Other that the illegals in his employment.
The quote you gave was from 2005. Mitt does say in that quote that a visa amnesty is reasonable.
In March of 2007 Romney switches to say that "McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer,". You should read Mitt's plan to see further that he is now against any form of special pathway.
See link below for audio of both the 11/2005 comment and the 3/2007 comment.
As far a leadership goes, one could reasonably say that few except the likes of Tom Tancredo were leaders on against illegal immigration. Both Fred and Mitt came on board about a year ago. Last month Tancredo welcomed Mitt aboard as he endorsed Mitt.
I think it's likely that either Fred or Mitt will lead on this issue if elected.
“So how would I come to the conclusion that Governor Romney is the best guy, especially since I studied cult apologetics, in seminary, under the late Dr. Walter Martin? For those who do not know or remember him, Dr. Martin was author of “The Kingdom of the Cults,” which is the bible of cult apologetics. He also founded and hosted the syndicated radio program “The Bible Answer Man.” Oh, and Walter was also my Sunday School teacher for 2 years.”
Dear Mr. Huff,
You should have listened to Dr. Martion more. It was Martin’s works that convinced me of the danger Mormonism poses, and I cannot imagine ever putting an active & dedicated Mormon in high office.
V/R
Sola Veritas
Are you keeping track of how many times Romney has claimed to change positions on major conservative issues? Doesn't that bother you?
Immigration
Taxes or what he calls Fees
Abortion
Gun Rights
I would say Health Care, but he still supports Hillary Care. I guess we just need to give him a little more time on that one.
What really bothers me, is that he really has not changed his positions on anything. He just presents them in a different way. Remember he ran to the left of Kennedy in 94! It's a long road from there to being a conservative. Nothing he has done or said has conviced me.
Would you back Teddy for president if he claimed to change his mind on a couple of issues?
I think that there are more rational Evangelicals than most people think.
At the Iowa caucus many supported Huckabee since it was his first entrance into the political arena and he came across in the debates as the dark horse and on the campaign trail as logical.
As time has progress and his “successes” mounted he has become more of a Preacher than a President. This turns me and many of my church friends off. Most of us will stand up as Believers, but don’t necessarily think it is wise to push your Faith on others. Acts of Faith are more meaningful than mere rhetoric.
“Since Huckabee, Romney, McCain, and Rudy were all for illegal immigration and amnesty until about 2 weeks ago, that’s what we’ll get anyway.”
That’s such an outright and blatant lie regarding Romney. Yes for the others, for Romney no. He’s been against illegal immigration and amnesty for quite a long time now.
Some of the things I feel are important, making me want to support a candidate
1. Get control of illegal immigration. No band aid fixes, no rewards for lawbreakers.
2. Support of our 2nd Amendment rights, with no compromise.
3. Tax reform. Get control of raiding the budget for pork barrel projects.
4. Right to life.
Any candidate who does not stand for those 4 principles is not worth of further consideration. I don’t know where I could find any compromise. Beyond those 4 issues, if supported by a candidate, every other important issue like liberal judges etc will fall in place.
But without those 4 abovementioned issues being at the top of a candidates platform, there is nothing else they can offer in appeasement.
Why is it that values voters are always the ones asked to compromise?
We had a Republican President and control of both houses of congress from 2000 to 2004. There were plenty of opportunities to appoint judges and fix the pressing problems of out nation like illegal immigration etc.
But the GOP failed miserably and allowed the liberals to dictate policy. Even the WOT has been micromanaged by the Dems, although is moderately successful dispite countless attacks from the left. The GOP is unwilling to stand up for values and what the PEOPLE ASKED FOR SPECIFICALLY. They got booted from control.
And now we are suddenly worried that a liberal may be sitting in the WH. Why act so suprised?
The GOP abandoned their voter base. And their reward could be complete rejection by the voters if they don’t start acting like the party we used to elect. The GOP has alienated itsself.
It is not the voters fault. We trusted the GOP to make a stand on the important issues and they let us down. And most of those on the campaign trail continue to be soft on the important things we ask for representation on.
Why vote when a vote is an exercise in futility? We have just as much right as voters to reject every candidate, as we do to compromise on a bad candidate that shows little difference to the worst candidate.
If the GOP is so worried that voters may sit this one out, then perhaps they need to adjust their campaign platform? Then we can take a second look to see if there is any fire in the belly.
Tom Delay was a fraud and a crook.
From the article:
>In Mark 9:38-40 we find something very interesting. I think it gives us a view of what Jesus might say on this subject as he had a similar situation arise on a question of faith.
>”Teacher,” said John, “we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us.”
>”Do not stop him,” Jesus said. “No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us.”
>Maybe Mitt Romney’s theology is not right, and as the late Rev. Jerry Falwell said about him shortly before his death, “we are not being asked to vote for a Bishop. I could not vote for a Mormon as Bishop, but I think I can vote for a Mormon as President.” Should we tell him to stop trying to heal our land or drive demons out of it because “he is not one of us?”
>Let us go beyond the religion to the faith. Religion is reactionary and full of fear while faith is full of vision, hope and promise. Do not accept my words, or anyone else’s words at face value, rather seek the truth for yourselves. I trust that as you seek the truth you will find it.
What I fear most is people’s willingness to compromise on a dime when they really want a dollar.
If Hillary is elected it will be the fault of the GOP for alienating their voter base. With the right platform the voters could come out in droves to support the right GOP candidate.
Voters rarely get what they ask for. But they do get what they vote for. Vote for lowered expectations and you will recieve lowered expectations.
Set the bar higher and demand more and Hillary can be defeated overwhelmingly. I don’t see that level in Romney, Huckabee, or McCain. They all talk a good talk.
see tagline.
Romney has done everything that he said he would do on winning an election. He gets things done, and he keeps his word.
“8 years of Clinton/Obama is a terrible waste.”
How do we get them in a Republican primary?
I do not see how how a Fredhead could possibly vote Huckabee.....or McCain.
Are you pretending to be stupid? Most on this thread are talking about staying home during the general election. Therefore ...
Actually in May 2005 interview with the Boston Globe, Romney said:
“it would not be Practical or economic for the country” to deport all illegal immigrants” and agreed with the citizenship-pathway proposals (a.k.a. amnesty) being offered at the time by President Bush and McCain.
I know you like your candidate, but at least be informed.
Go google up the link youself, it’s not hard.
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.