Posted on 12/22/2011 7:24:15 AM PST by JSDude1
CNSNews.com) – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, says he has no plans to reverse the Obama administration’s repeal of the ban on homosexuals serving in the U.S. military
In an editorial meeting in early November with the Des Moines Register, which endorsed him for the Iowa caucuses pending on Jan. 3, Romney was asked, “How do you feel about gays serving openly in the military?”
Romney said, “That’s already occurred. I’m not planning on reversing that at this stage.”
The reporter followed up, “But you’re comfortable with it?”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I think the reason you are baffled is that you have not been aware of how many Republican primary voters are themselves liberals. It is not a small number, but enough to declare a majority through plurality.
Not this conservative! I will never, under any circumstances, vote for Willard Romney the open socialist.
Neither will I support his supporters. Any elected official who endorses Mitt Romney should be thrown out of office. How do we expect to restore America with politicians who are too scared to stand up to the establishment?
26 posted on Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:48:27 AM by longtermmemmory: “This needs to become a litmust test issue. period. Gingrich at least said he will push for the federal marriage amendment.”
11 posted on Thursday, December 22, 2011 9:35:18 AM by achilles2000: “Unfortunately, Newt would be sodomite friendly too, as would RP.”
We need documentation on Newt Gingrich’s views on the Defense of Marriage Act and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Right now.
This is too serious to let slide. Mitt Romney has managed now to be even more liberal than Bill Clinton. Newt Gingrich is probably the only viable alternative to Mitt Romney. If he’s also in favor of gay marriage and gays in the military, we need to know that immediately and work as hard as possible in the next couple of weeks to get somebody else the necessary support to win Iowa.
Facts are stubborn things. Let’s be stubborn in ferreting them out.
Look at their accomplishments. Newt allied himself with Ronald Reagan to build the Reagan Coalition, the Religious Right, and the Republican majority (together the Reagan Revolution) which directly led the downfall of the Soviet Union, the Contract with America, government reforms, less government, tax cuts, a balanced budget, and the great, long-standing Reagan economy.
Romney, on the other hand, vehemently denied Ronald Reagan and aligned himself with Ted Kennedy and the left. Romney accomplished installing liberal big government programs, defended and promoted Roe v Wade and legalized abortion as “settled law,” advocated and implemented RomneyCare with its liberty killing government mandates against formerly free citizens and its taxpayer funded or subsidized and mandated abortion procedures. He ran and governed to the left of Ted Kennedy on the “gay agenda” resulting in gay marriage in Massachusetts. He appointed liberal judges and liberal appointees throughout his government. Under his “leadership” conservatism and the Republican party was all but destroyed in Massachusetts.
Romney is one evil liberal progressive. No way in hell will MittBots be allowed to support this abortionist, big government, socialist scumbag on FR!
Guess my message isn’t clear enough. I have to keep repeating it and zotting would be MittBots.
79 posted on Sat Dec 03 2011 19:59:37 GMT-0800 (Pacific Standard Time) by Jim Robinson
True.
The irony is that in the draft-era military back in Vietnam, every one of those homosexuals could have avoided military service by declaring his homosexuality. For whatever reason, they chose to serve in the military. I don't support homosexuality in any way, shape or form, but we can and should thank them for their service.
The issue is not whether homosexuals can serve in uniform (DADT allows that) but whether they can do so openly and flagrantly — i.e., whether homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle choice that should be protected.
That is a major problem and it must be addressed. Mitt Romney's position may fly in Massachusetts, but it **CANNOT** be allowed to become part of Republican Party policy.
I’m with you.
I’m so ready to vote third party if the GOP establishment hands us another Ratling.
Let Obammie the Commie win and let the financial collapse smash straight in his face and in the face of every leftist that pushed this garbage.
Let it collapse. Rebuild. Never, never let them come to power or spread their lies again. Remind the citizenry constantly what leftism leads to.
I will not vote for that sick scumbag Romney, period. That is a promise to myself and the world.
I arrived at that decision long ago, but every day there’s something new that gives me comfort in my irreversible, final decision.
Screw Romney, and screw the GOP establishment.
Thanks for that post. And have a Merry Christmas!
Connecticut Yankee supports Massachusetts Governor. WOW!
Arrowhead, I sincerely hope you kept copies of training materials and detailed notes of what got said, and that you post them on Free Republic after you hang up your uniform for the last time.
I suspect there are several members of the House Armed Services Committee (Rep. Hartzler and Rep. West, for example) who may be very interested in what you have to say and are angry enough about the gay agenda that they may be able to get some national attention on this issue. The senior GOP leaders are likely to let the “backbencher” junior members start the fight on this, and then join the fight if the backbenchers get enough people riled up.
Notes on what got said by the trainer are critical. I've heard horror stories and the training seems to differ considerably from trainer to trainer. My guess is that means the “guidelines” are inherently open to interpretation, and that's dangerous in and of itself.
As a recent New York Times article on the different but not entirely unrelated issue of high school sex education classes pointed out, some of the “push the envelope” sex educators don't want formal changes in the written curriculum because it could attract opposition, and prefer to focus on changing high school student's perceptions via classroom discussions which don't show up in print.
However, I do realize that there's an alternative explanation to the differences in how people are reacting to the training on homosexuality. Maybe some servicemembers are more “sensitized” to stuff that highly offends others. That doesn't necessarily mean the people who aren't as offended agree with homosexuality. I've dealt with gay agenda stuff for at least thirty years, my church membership was once in a church in Greenwich Village (where for many years it was the only evangelical congregation, though there are now others), and very little shocks me anymore. An 18-year-old private who grew up in rural America may get furious at things that I don't like but no longer choose to fight because there are worse problems out there.
Well let’s let the vocal minority have all the benefits of their tumultuous travails to date... The gay lobby has successfully instilled lover’s quarters in the military barracks so they (gays) don’t have to bother with going off base anymore for their trysts.
Whatever... if anyone thinks this will positively affect the military in any way, shape, or fashion, well they might just be beyond hope!
Incidentally, I haven’t seen you disagree with my initial assertion about the UCMJ changes. Is it safe to assume that’s correct from your understanding of the training as well?
You are madder than a March hare.
Led to the deterioration of our society.
I would think he’d lie about this like he does with everything else. Wow, what a toast comment for South Carolina and the military bases there...sucks for Romney.
“Not this conservative! I will never, under any circumstances, vote for Willard Romney the open socialist. Neither will I support his supporters. Any elected official who endorses Mitt Romney should be thrown out of office. How do we expect to restore America with politicians who are too scared to stand up to the establishment?”
That’s the core of it.
Why are people like Romney in public life, and how do we get them out?
“Right now the public supports the repeal of DADT”
I don’t believe that for one second.
People *say* they support it when cornered because they are afraid.
Anyway, as Samuel Adams said, “…it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds…”
I’m irate. Are you?
You are still trying to conceal your poor reading comprehension and poor reasoning skills by making dishonest accusations. Nevertheless, there is hope. These difficiencies can be remedied with some work and reflection.
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.