Leave him ALONE!!
Posted on 02/14/2008 9:12:59 AM PST by JRochelle
Snip Let us not forget that Romney snapped his fingers before the election and decided to become a conservative by switching his positions on a litany of key issues, even though his past record was moderate. There were endless gaffes throughout the campaign in which he reinforced the well-earned perception that he would say anything to get elected--from describing himself as a lifelong hunter even though he had hunted only twice, for saying he watched his father march with MLK, for claiming an endorsement of the NRA he never received, etc.
He also failed to emotionally connect with voters. I would go to Romney speeches all year, and talk to audience members after who would tell me they agreed with what he said, but he was "too slick" and "too packaged." It never ceased to amaze me how emotionally tone deaf he was as a candidate, most notable was when he said his sons were serving their country by working to get him elected. I went to a townhall meeting just days before the New Hampshire primary in which a woman said her 26-year old cousin had been paralyzed in a rugby accident, and she asked Romney for his position on stem cell research. Romney responded, "Great, thank you for the question" and he went on with a textbook answer about pluripotent cells without offering any sympathy. Romney's checklist conservatism appealed to desperate conservatives on a cerebral level, but he never reached people emotionally as Huckabee and McCain did. If you want to know why McCain beat Romney, look no further than the final debate between them at the Reagan Library. When they were asked why Reagan would endorse them, Romney recited a laundry list of issues on which Reagan would have agreed with him, while McCain
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
How is what I posted trashing his religion?
I missed that part.
LOL
You mention quoting geezers from 150 years ago.
One of my favorite geezers lived on this earth about 2000 years ago. Maybe you’ve heard him quoted, too?
His name is Jesus of Nazareth.
That's the only song on the jukebox.
You: Not true. He always opposed civil unions. I defy you to find a single instance where he supports them.
In either 2001 or 2002, Romney opposed a pre-emptive Marriage Protection Amendment that would have prohibited both same-sex marriage and civil unions. By October 2002, he said he didn't support or prefer either same-sex marriage or civil unions. Still, he said if he had to choose, he said he would "favor" civil unions. By the Fall of 2003, he was working with the state legislature to promote civil unions. By the Spring of 2004, he was recommending to 22 state Republicans to support the Travaglini-Lees "compromise amendment" which would have implemented civil unions. 15 of the 22 listened to him allowing the measure to pass by 5 votes. It wasn't til half-way through 2005 (June) that he backed off of civil unions.
2001-2002 CNN says it was 2001; the Boston Phoenix says it was 2002...these sources don't agree which year it was, but they both agree Romney made "too extreme" comment: Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/20/gay.marriage.ap/ Nov. 20, 2003 [Link no longer active]) In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as "too extreme" the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits. (Source: Boston Phoenix, May 14-20, 2004)
October, 2002: A review of Romney's remarks shows that at an October 2002 campaign debate, he said: "Call me old fashioned, but I don't support gay marriage nor do I support civil union." Then, after the SJC decision legalizing same-sex marriage, he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: "But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage." (Source: Boston Globe, Feb. 25, 2005)
Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”: In headline "Massachussetts Governor Urges Civil Unions, not Marriage," ... Romney said Wednesday he believes the state could adopt civil unions similar to those allowed in Vermont -- then continue working toward a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.... "I believe their [the Court's] decision indicates that a provision which provides that benefits, obligations, rights and responsibilities which are consistent with marriage but perhaps could be called by a different name would be in conformity with their decision," Romney said. "Under that opinion, I believe a civil-union type provision would be sufficient." (Source: AP, Nov. 20, 2003)
March 29, 2004 Romney tells MA Republican legislators to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (...wouldn't go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes. "In crucial shift, governor sways 15 in GOP to support measure" Through all the twists and shifts during the gay-marriage debate this year, there was one constant: 22 Republicans in the House of Representatives opposed every measure that would grant gay couples civil unions in the constitution. That all changed yesterday, however, when 15 of that 22-member bloc broke away at the urging of Governor Mitt Romney and voted in favor of a proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage but create Vermont-style civil unions. Those 15 members provided the margin of victory, observers from both camps said yesterday after the measure passed by just five votes.... it was clear that the Republican governor had a major effect on the fracturing of the 22-member bloc.... (Source: Boston Globe, March 30, 2004)
Feb, 2005: "Romney's stance on civil unions draws fire; Activists accuse governor of 'flip-flopping' on issue" -- ... Yesterday the Log Cabin Republicans sharply rebuked the Massachusetts governor, saying his remarks indicate he is backsliding on his 2002 campaign commitment to support some benefits for gay couples. He had also urged GOP lawmakers to vote for a proposed constitutional amendment last spring that would ban same-sex marriage but allow gay couples to enter into civil unions....Last March, Romney's staff told House Republicans he supported the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions.... (Source: Boston Globe, Feb. 25, 2005)
June 2005: Governor Mitt Romney yesterday endorsed a grass-roots effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2008, abandoning his support for what he called a ''muddied" compromise measure that would also ban gay marriages but allow gays to enter into civil unions...Reflecting the uneasiness among politicians over same-sex marriage, last spring the Legislature passed the Travaglini-Lees amendment to ban gay marriage but allow civil unions. It cleared by just five votes. At the time, Romney urged Republicans to back the measure because it was the only one put forth by lawmakers that had a chance of passing.<./b> (Source: Boston Globe, June 17, 2005)
So if the above references are not at times supporting civil unions, what is?
Small business types support Huckabee.
By endorsing McPain so long before the convention Romney has proven that he is more of the same—a slick pol who puts integrity last!
Not so. He flipped back & forth on civil unions. He was first for them; then against them as it got closer to the 2002 election. Then he was form them in 2003 & 2004...by mid-way 2005, he was against them. [For documentation, see post #265]
Flipped flopped with 3 different positions on ENDA and embryonic stem cell research. [For documentation, see post #259]
Short Paople: Randy Newman
Short People got no reason
Short People got no reason
Short People got no reason
To live
They got little hands
And little eyes
And they walk around
Tellin’ great big lies
They got little noses
And tiny little teeth
They wear platform shoes
On their nasty little feet
Well, I don’t want no Short People
Don’t want no Short People
Don’t want no Short People
Round here
Short People are just the same
As you and I
(A Fool Such As I)
All men are brothers
Until the day they die
(It’s A Wonderful World)
Short People got nobody
Short People got nobody
Short People got nobody
To love
They got little baby legs
And they stand so low
You got to pick ‘em up
Just to say hello
They got little cars
That go beep, beep, beep
They got little voices
Goin’ peep, peep, peep
They got grubby little fingers
And dirty little minds
They’re gonna get you every time
Well, I don’t want no Short People
Don’t want no Short People
Don’t want no Short People
‘Round here
True.
It just takes the position that it is immoral and no member of the Church should have one.
Not true. [See below where LDS believe that it can be "moral" to abort if God says so, etc.]
Hence one can be a good Mormon and still be pro-abortion as a matter of policy...
True.
...so long as one is "personally" opposed to the practice, and counsels people not to have abortions.
Not true. [The LDS Church itself counsels folks that certain circumstances are "OK"...see below]
Allow me to re-post something I sent to an LDS poster a few weeks ago:
Poster said; A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy...
[What that ] doesn't tell you is that over 90% of all abortions today occur in free-standing abortion clinics "courtesy" of either local full-time abortionists or by circuit-riding abortionists who traverse between 2 or more communities in a region. The vast # of abortions are NOT done by part-time OB GYNS in hospitals or as an outpatient in a doc's office (not any more). So, in 90% of the cases--higher if the girl/woman/partner or her family really wants the abortion [cause, duh, they'll just take her to an abortionist, not their family doc]--that "competent physician" who will say she "needs" the abortion is a money-grubbing, bottom-feeder abortionist who gets paid by how high the body pile is stacked!
Poster said: A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
English translation into English: Since docs have been wrong thousands of times in "forecasting" disabilities, this statement should read, "A competent prophet-physician determines that the baby is disabled and can pinpoint their death day within usually 4-5 months..." [there, fixed it] Oh, and please note, just because this disabled boy or girl is going to die, why, that means they are now eligible for dismemberment with nothing given to the baby to offset the pain...Hmmm...aren't we all going to die??? Don't we ALL have a human condition that will mean we won't survive that disability we have called "sin?" And what does it say about a church when it targets a disabled child who's not causing any problems (under than emotional ones) for a 100% healthy mom?
Poster said: Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
English translation into English: Since we don't want the Mom or Dad or Grandparents of the baby to actually accept any responsibility for what they are about to do, why, we'll make God the great culprit--a before-the-act accomplice who ordered the "hit" job...Yeah, that's it...Why, He told us to dismember the baby!!! Why, we prayed about it (and our church was fully encouraging that we do...[whisper: as if those who pray about murdering a baby or not don't already likely have a predisposition toward carrying it out end-whisper] )
So, in summary, what have we learned about the "god" of this "general" counsel? Well, he doesn't always> like severely disabled babies; or babies whose daddies were the sickest sinners (rapists & family rapists)...but he does bless abortionists & their business recommends...well, as long as they're "competent"...and be sure to note that I left in a caveat of this isn't "always" so because his ordering these hit jobs isn't "automatic"--why, sometimes, he just let's 'em live despite their disability or geneology!
He opposed both gay marriage and civil unions for gays, but he didn't support a pre-emptive amendment, either. There's nothing inconsistent with these positions. Many conservatives share the philosophy that one should not enact a constitutional amendment unless it is absolutely necessary. Conservative judicial philosophy holds that the constitution should be amendment sparingly.
However, he immediately started to advocate an amendment when the Goodridge decision made it necessary.
By October 2002, he said he didn't support or prefer either same-sex marriage or civil unions.
He never supported either one.
Still, he said if he had to choose, he said he would "favor" civil unions.
There you go distroting his position again. From the very same source you cite:
" he told WCVB on Dec. 17, 2003, that if he had to choose, he would favor civil unions over full-fledged gay marriage. However, he added: 'But that is not my preference overall. My preference overall would be neither civil union or marriage.'"
He is simply saying that civil unions are the lesser of two evils, and if the only way to stop gay marriage is to allow civil unions, he will go with civil unions.
That's the reality of politics: you often don't get the ideal thing, so you have to settle for something less than ideal. Unlike you, Romney is rational and doesn't make the perfect the enemy of the better.
By the Fall of 2003, he was working with the state legislature to promote civil unions.
Same distortion as above. He was working to pass the only marriage amendment he could get through the legislature.
What was he supposed to do? Simply let the Goodridge decision stand without trying to pass any amendment to overturn it?
By the Spring of 2004, he was recommending to 22 state Republicans to support the Travaglini-Lees "compromise amendment" which would have implemented civil unions.
Of course, because the legislature voted down the amendment, which he supported, without civil unions. Romney was right that civil unions is a lesser evil than full-fledged gay marriage.
In politics it is sometimes necessary to support the lesser of two evils, but you're obviously you're too immature to realize that. I suggest you grow up.
The rest of your quotes are part of the same story: Romney settled for a compromise amendment with civil unions only because he could not get his preferred amendment without civil unions through the legislature.
Again, I say to you, grow up.
You provide no evidence for a multiple changes. Let's look at the evidence you provide:
Pre-Christmas 1994 (October): “We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden…” Oct. 6, 1994 Romney for U.S. Senate letter to Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts
Yes, he was for a Federal ENDA 14 years ago. We know all that.
Pre-Christmas 2006 Interview (mid-December): Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today? Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.
Okay, so now he opposes a Federal ENDA, which we already know. So we have exactly one change in position. A flip, made over the course of 14 years, and a pretty minor one at that, but no flop.
You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it? GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level. GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/
So he continues to oppose a Federal ENDA, but supports it at the state level. Where's the second change? He supported a Federal ENDA, but now opposes it. There's no change in his position on state-level ENDAs. That's one change.
Or did your mother never teach you to count?
I don't like this position any more than you do. I wish he would change it, but unfortunately, he's consistently stuck to it.
Let's now look at your citations:
Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life
So here he says he opposes cloning. Not surprising.
Romney is interviewed by CBS' Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law
So he supports allowing couples to donate their "surplus" embryos for research. A repugnant position, to be sure, but there is no change here.
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted."
Everything said above is true. Romney's position on allowing parents to donate their embryos to research is not morally sound. However, nothing above indicates that he changed his position one iota.
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002, where he: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning.
Nothing new here. He supports research on non-cloned embryos. At this point he didn't say anything about embryo cloning, probably because people were just starting to talk about the possibility in 2001. There's nothing inconsistent with his later positions.
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004: Romney meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536-2,00.html
Okay, so we know he opposes cloning. No change in position.
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research manner!
Yes, well, we know that. He hates cloning but doesn't mind if Mom and Dad give away an embryo junior for experimental research, a morally unsound position, but a consistent one nontheless.
So where exactly is his change in position? I see no change at all. Exactly zero changes.
Oh, but I forgot, you don't know how to count.
Typical distortion from Colofornian. Romney was always against civil unions, but he was willing include civil unions in a constitutional Amendment abolishing gay marriage if that was the only way he could get the amendment passed. Sometimes in politics we have to settle for something less than ideal. Colofornian sems to be too immature to understand this basic fact of reality.
See post#270 for documentation.
. Flipped flopped with 3 different positions on ENDA and embryonic stem cell research. [For documentation, see post #259]
It appears Colofornian can't count. See posts #271 and 272. Romney made exactly one change on the ENDA and zero changes on embryonic stem cell research.
Romney was never for civil unions. But I’m sure you already know that, don’t you?
(Debate, 2002, Romney quote:) “Call me old fashioned, but I don’t support gay marriage nor do I support civil union.”
(from Wikipedia)
“When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of legalized same-sex marriage in 2003, Romney lobbied for a state constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage but allow civil unions. Romney explained in 2005: ‘From day one I’ve opposed the move for same-sex marriage and its equivalent, civil unions....I am only supporting civil unions if gay marriage is the alternative.’”
You can spin and excuse all you want, but you can’t change a person’s written quotes. And thanks to people like you who bought the spin about Romney’s record, we’re now stuck with the true RINO, McCain.
He promised to the voters in 2001 that he wouldn't change the abortion laws. Keeping a promise is not a flip-flop.
Supposedly “personally pro-life...didn't approve of abortion" candidates don't...
(1) ...show up @ racist child-killing organizational rallies like Planned Parenthood events to promote that organization like he did in 1994...
Planned parenthood does more than just provide abortions. They also do some good things, like provide pre-natal care for poor women. That's why every single budget president Bush has signed includes Federal money that goes to Planned Parenthood.
Is president Bush insufficiently pro-life because he signed those budgets?
(2) ...have their wives give $150 donations to racist child-killing organizations like Planned Parenthood like Ann Romney did in 1994...
So he's supposed to control his wife as if she were his daughter?
(3) ...try to "cement" endorsements from child-killing orgs like NARAL by meeting with three NARAL execs if a questionnaire would suffice to show his shared "legal" live & let die mentality as he did in 2002. (See http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp
NARAL's mission is to keep abortion legal. Romney agreed with that stance before 2005. I don't see the inconsistency.
(4) ...tell NARAL execs what Romney told them in 2002: According to the Weekly Standard: He also tried to pique the executives' interest in endorsing him by bluntly acknowledging that he had higher political aspirations, saying, "You need someone like me in Washington." [Source: Weekly Standard] ...
At that time he wanted to keep abortion legal, and so did NARAL. What's the inconsistency?
(5) ...go out of their way, after already netting two pro-abortion endorsements, personally telephoning organizations like Majority for Choice as did Romney in the Spring of 2002. Again, from The Weekly Standard: That spring, Romney also personally telephoned the group Republican Majority for Choice and asked for its endorsement. Completing a questionnaire similar to those of other pro-choice groups, Romney got what he wanted from the pro-choice Republicans. His campaign trumpeted the endorsement with a press release.
All he had to declare to get the endorsement was make clear he intended to keep abortion legal. There's nothing inconsistent with that and his view that abortion is immoral but should be kept legal.
(6) ...go around using the strongest possible language for a Mormon to state their support for Roe vs. Wade.
If you want to keep abortion legal, you support Roe v. Wade. That's doesn't necessarily mean you think it is moral.
"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
More of the same: he wanted to keep it abortion legal, so he wanted to sustain the SCOTUS decision that makes it legal. How is that inconsistent with his position that it should be legal even while it is immoral?
Next you post an anti-Mormon screed. I'm not going to dignify it with a response.
Moving on, you write:
April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby not only expanding abortion access for wealthier Bay State women,
Only women for incomes within 300% of the poverty line can sign up for CommonwealthCare, which is a subsidized insurance program available to only a small segment of the population. Because of an 1980's Supreme Judicial Court decision, all state-subsidized healthcare programs have to cover abortion, so there was no way to prevent CommonwealthCare from covering abortion. Now most of these women already had access to state-subsidized abortion previously, since they qualified for medicade. However, a small number of women who qualified for this program but previously did not qualify for Medicade did gain access to tax-funded abortions as a result.
The important question is whether this increased the number of abortions in the commonwealth. The evidence suggests not: abortions actually declined slightly after it was passed. Ther reason is pretty simple. Think about it. A woman who is too rich to qualify for Medicade but still within 300% of poverty can afford the $250 to get an abortion. Now instead of paying $250, she can get one for $50. I don't like it, but I seriously doubt that the $200 savings is going to be critical in any woman's decision on whether to get an abortion.
As governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).
Planned Parenthood was already on the MassHealth board before the legislation was passed. They're also involved in Medicade at the Federal level. The reason for it is that they're a big provider of pre-natal services to poor pregant women, those that want to keep their babies. Romney signing this part of the bill is no different than president Bush signing budgets that send money to Planned Parenthood. I don't like it either, but it is political reality.
No politician, no matter how principled, can afford to be ideologically pure.
” They supported him before he gave them a dime.
And I am frankly insulted at your baseless accusation. I have personal friends who are board members of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. I worked closely with some of them as an officer in MIT pro-life back when I was in grad school. They are some of the most dedicated an moral people I have ever met, and I’d bet they’ve done more for the pro-life cause in a single minute than you’ve done your entire life. For you, without any evidence, and without having ever met them, to impugn their character in this way is beyond repugnant.
This kind of thing does not belong on this forum.”
I will post the information I have, common public knowledge to this thread. I may not have a chance to get it tonight but definitely with the next 24 hours.
BTW, it’s old news...
I don’t think Mormonism sunk Romney. I don’t think Romney sunk Romney.
George Bush sunk Romney.
It isn’t news anymore, so nobody talks about it, but Bush’s approval rating is sitting in the toilet around 30%. Taking on the mantle of more of the same is not going to sell this time around.
Evangelicals who don’t care what a politician actually does in this life because it’s the next one that counts are pretty much the only people who still like Bush, and they would vote for whoever Bush designated as a successor Mormon or not, but Huckabee was there to take those votes.
McCain was the mainstream candidate furthest from Bush, so his winning primaries open beyond the evangelical base was a foregone conclusion.
In 2005, Romney would have walked away with it.
For some reason you have a mental block here. Here, let me help you out by just switching to another hypothetical issue that we'll just treat as parallel (please note that the most important component of the hypothetical parallel below is bold-faced & underlined; whereas the secondary consideration is italicized):
Candidate R wants slavery legalized at the fed level. A dozen years later, he does a u-turn: No slavery at the fed level. One year beyond that, he takes a new position which you say is not new.
Effectively, your argument in this illustration is tantamount to saying: "Hey, his position a year before was no legal slavery @ the fed level and his position this year is no legal slavery @ the fed level. What's you're problem? You can't count the # of changes?"
The problem is you are just making a technical point on the secondary portion of the concern in order for you to claim a phantom consistency. The problem is that a candidate who would go from a pro-fed slavery position to an anti-fed slavery position and then onto a pro-state-level slavery position is certainly more pro-slavery than he would be re: any anti-federal imposition considerations!
But nice try. Quite Clintonian of you, in fact. (Have you ever thought of running for public office?)
To hear you tell it, the door thru which legislation passes is all that matters for consistency sake. (It doesn't matter about the content of the issue itself).
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.