Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Colofornian
Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.

And yet, your post refers to nothing but his faith. Honestly - were Romney the very image of Ronald Reagan, save for his Morman beliefs, would you vote for him?

525 posted on 02/05/2008 12:56:20 PM PST by TonyInOhio (Looks like I need to brush up on my Spanish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies ]


To: TonyInOhio
And yet, your post refers to nothing but his faith.

Because I was responding to an initial post by somebody else that focused only on faith.

Honestly - were Romney the very image of Ronald Reagan, save for his Morman beliefs, would you vote for him?

I've outlined on other threads that Romney has taken 3 positions in 13 years on forcing businesses to hire alternative sexual minorities--he now wants states to implement that; he's taken 3 positions in 5.5 years on embryonic stem cell research, including telling Katie Couric in early December that if a "parent" of an otherwise adoptable frozen embryo (he even mentions the word "adoption") wanted to "donate" the adoptable embryo to research (for dissection purposes), that would be "acceptable."

As late as half a year ago, he still would not “come clean” on what his supposed previous position was: Look at this quote from his Aug. 12, 2007 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."

(The problem with the common LDS approach to reality and truth is that it’s determined by pure feeling--a burning in the bosom…)

That interview, BTW, wasn’t the first time he didn’t come clean on his true position or former position.

Early 2007 on the campaign trail: "I was always for life” [Romney statement in South Carolina, Feb. 8, 2007]

May 27, 2005 after his supposed Nov, 2004 “conversion” to a pro-life position: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.”

Seven years after his solidly pro-abortion positions & attending Planned Parenthood promotional events & one year before feeling out NARAL, Planned Parenthood and Majority for Choice questionnaires & trumpeting those in a press release, he said: ” I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." [Source: Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01]

What is it about these weird “sandwiches” he throws up in between his latest position on abortion? Could you imagine Reagan doing all this kind of equivocating?

564 posted on 02/05/2008 1:26:46 PM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 525 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson