Posted on 04/12/2012 9:01:29 PM PDT by STARWISE
That’s a loser’s response. Your claims are laughable.
Unless these organizations know something bad we don't about Gingrich or good we don't know about Romney (not likely in either case), I can think of no good reason why they've made an endorsement while there are still other pro-life candidates in the Republican Party primary.
I can think of a number of bad reasons but I'm not going to throw stones without facts.
No, I don’t think Sarah is a RINO, though she will eventually support Romney, if he’s the nominee. Her conservative credentials are well-established. She, like Mark Levin, has been clear that we need to nominate a conservative, and that’s not Romney. But if she supports him as the nominee, that’s her choice, her reasoning, and she has to make it herself. That’s fine. It’s not as though she’s been hyperventilating over him for months and wishing he’d make her his second wife, like Ann Coulter’s done.
But I know what I have to do, as well.
The precedent here really undermines the purpose for the organization. As the article points out, Giuliani was (correctly) rejected by NRTL because he, as a pro-abort, ran as a pro-abort but promised to appoint strict constructionist judges to try to persuade us to accept him. That dog didn’t hunt, of course. But compare it to Romney, who as a pro-abort, who simply lied about being pro-abort, and (incorrectly) received an NRTL endorsement.
The message they’re giving pro-abort Republicans is not to acknowledge they’re pro-abort and try to bargain with us pro-lifers to accept them (as Giuliani did), but instead simply to lie to us pro-lifers (as Romney did).
Agreed 100%!
Sarah knows that a 2nd Obama term is the worse then any other alternative.
On the election:
Sarah on the Sean Hannity show 4-12-2012
Download here: http://www.mediafire.com/?wo9bxx7mqma9x1m
Hannity: (8:40min:seconds to 8:46 ) “Alright, Lets talk about the campaign and your convinced Romney’s it now? Do you think it’s pretty much over?”
Palin(8:47 – 9:09 ) “Well let me put it this way, I don’t want Newt to drop out, I don’t want Ron Paul to drop out, because I want debate still on the ideas that both of the other candidates have been able to espouse and explain to the country, I want Ron Paul’s message about cutting the budget, about the economic woeful times that we are in and what we can do about it I want those to continue to be discussed and Newt has some good ideas too.”
Hannity: (9:09-9:22 ) Are you convinced, because you spoke about this at an earlier time during the primary, are you convinced as to time has gone on that governor Romney will govern as a solid strong conservative or do you still have doubts?
Palin: (9:23-9:37 ) “I am convinced that governor Romney, if he is our nominee and if he is elected president, he will know to surround himself with those that will inherently know to go right, to err on the side of smaller, smarter government and that gives me a lot of confidence.”
Exactly, Onyx. Sarah is doing what she has to do.
Well you didn’t expect them to endorse Obama, did you?
Of course not.
Showing their weak pro life commitment, they
voted for a man with a very checkered abortion
record. They didn’t have to endorse anyone
yet. Newt is still ostensibly in, MR doesn’t
yet have the delegates, and no one knows what
will happen at the convention.
They’re just reflecting the reality of the situation. I don’t believe Newt can garner the votes needed, and apparently neither does the Committee.
We don’t know what’s going to happen with certainty yet as the days/months roll on, do we. And what’s that got to do with it anyway? This is allegedly a pro life organization endorsing someone who’s amply demonstrated he’s NOT a trustworthy pro lifer.
~~~~~~~~~~
*snip*
However, when I was looking around for more information on the issue, I found this Politifact piece from last cycle which had a different take:
The Thompson campaign, which has been playing up the former U.S. senator’s antiabortion stances, sent out this e-mail in November 2007:
“So what sort of services does Romney’s health care plan provide? Per the state Web site: $50 co-pay for abortions.
“While court mandate requires Massachusetts to cover ‘medically necessary’ abortions in state-subsidized health plans, Mitt Romney’s plan covers ALL abortions — no restrictions.”
And it’s true.
…
Romney’s campaign counters that the decision about what services to cover was ultimately left up to the independent Commonwealth Care Authority.
But Romney was well-represented: Of the six policy-making members of the authority’s 10-member board, half are appointed by the governor, and half by the state attorney general. Half of the ex-officio members also are appointed by the governor, including the chairman — the governor’s secretary of administration and finance — and the state insurance commission.
Although Romney shares responsiblity with the state legislature and the program’s board, Commonwealth Care was his pet project, and he takes credit for it. We find Thompson’s claims true.
Flip flopper at very best is the accurate appraisal of MR. How proud must he feel that Obama celebrated the 6 yr anniversary of Romneycare this week.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/12/obama-campaign-salutes-romneycare-anniversary/
As they say, watch what they do, NOT what they say.
It’s NOT over, ‘til it’s over.
“What are you going to do, bleed on me?”
I am not singing high praises to Romney, you are dishonest if you claim otherwise.
I simply refuse to allow you are anyone else to sing the praises of Obama, and you do just that with the delusional postings about Obama and Romney being identical, as they clearly are not.
As for your “dear friends”??
Give me a break, those who pick fights should have the ability to defend themselves, and the ability to take it as well as dish it out.
It is highly unlikely that your political or legal accomplishments, on behalf of the Conservative cause, would ever measure up to mine.
I have no need for your lectures and I am amused by your ignorant, defensive insults.
Guess what?
Truth does NOT change, and I speak the TRUTH!
You find the truth “tiresome” as you live in denial and self-delusion.
heat
kitchen
You attacked the NRLC.
I defended the NRLC by asking what wonderful accomplishments YOU have, on behalf of the unborn.
That is a very legitimate question, if you think YOUR ideas and strategy are some how “superior” -—
You respond with a crybaby tantrum and accuse me of personal attacks?
Get over yourself.
We agree.
The NRA, National Right-to-Life, and similar organizations are single-issue advocacy groups. Sometimes a long-term Democrat incumbent can be very effective on gun issues or abortion or whatever. I don't dispute that — pro-gun Democrats have historically been critical to killing anti-gun legislation and there was a point that pro-life Democrats were providing necessary majorities to keep important legislation from being derailed by Democratic Party leaders. It's pretty hard for the Senate or House leadership to keep a bill bottled up in committee when it's not just Republicans but also high-level Democrats who are demanding a vote.
But Romney has a track record of telling abortionists and homosexual marriage advocates that he wanted their endorsement because he'd be an effective advocate for their views in the Republican Party!
Also, we're not talking about the general election. I can understand why NRTL might back Romney over Obama there as the “least bad” candidate. But somebody explain to me why these organizations decided to back Mitt Romney when 1) he probably doesn't need their endorsement in the primary, and 2) the nomination fight isn't over yet.
I'm not happy at all about the National Right to Life endorsement. I believe all it did was antagonize conservatives by giving “cover” to Mitt Romney. and for no good reason since at this point there's a good chance he's going to win the nomination anyway without their help.
I really can't see any good reason for this Right-to-Life endorsement of Romney at this point. It seems like the endorsement risks damaging the organizations without providing meaningful help to the candidate they're endorsing.
Did Newt Gingrich do something decades ago to torque off Right to Life and the anti-homosexual marriage lobby? I can see no good reason for this endorsement, even from a single-issue perspective.
Darrell
You're missing the point.
The Republican Party has made a calculated decision that it can win without Social Conservatives...or, more correctly...without pandering to Social Conservatives.
They are right.
Social Conservatives, by limiting themselves to JUST a couple/three issues have so marginalized themselves that they have become more of an election liability than asset.
Think about it.
"Social Conservatives" have, historically, NOT been reliable Republican voters. The Reagan years were an anomaly.
In fact, as many Social Conservatives vote Democrat today as those who vote Republican.
Why would the Republican Party make a special place for them? After all, their power is the primaries, NOT the General Election.
SoCons need to get over this idea that they will determine who the GOP nominee and POTUS will be. They are 10% of the general election vote. They hold less clout then blacks in the Democratic Party...and don't have even 10% of the sympathizers of the blacks.
I'm not SoCons should reduce their voice or demand. I'm saying folks are waking up to the numbers and calculating otherwise.
We'll see if they're wrong.
I don't think they are.
SoCons that are conservatives will vote GOP. SoCons that are liberal will vote Democrat.
Check my posting history... I've spent a fair amount of time since Santorum’s withdrawal by writing on Christian principles in voting, and a key issue for me is that I believe it's important to cite chapter-and-verse why an evangelical can vote for Newt Gingrich in good conscience.
Here are some examples:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2870368/posts?page=1196#1196
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2870368/posts?page=1204#1204
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2871012/posts?page=1333#1333
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/2871012/posts?page=1345#1345
I'm not very happy about backing a person with Gingrich's background, but I will vote for a repentant adulterer before I'll vote for a baby-killer who doesn't appear to have seriously repented of his wickedness.
It really is that simple.
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.