Posted on 06/13/2012 2:03:43 PM PDT by MindBender26
In Case You Don't Like Romney...
Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important question regarding the upcoming presidential election …
“If Romney wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who may have hesitation on that score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind:
1.. Justice Scalia just turned 78
2.. Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year
3.. Justice Breyer will be 76 in August
4.. Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago and has had cancer twice.
Whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court — in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come.
If you don’t think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you’re smokin’ something funky….”
So for anybody who is thinking of not voting because your favorite didn’t get nominated, or writing in a candidate who can't win ... just imagine this possibility:
'SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ERIC HOLDER'
Did that get your attention!
You really think Romney personally approved each application?
Wow.
I wonder which?
FUMR
No, the wow is on you. He had to approve, it was his roll as governor to approve or disapprove.
What is presented here is from the Boston Globe, I presented it to you without comment, and your deflection makes it about me.
What is most interesting is that for reasons known only to you, the evidence (over whelming) that Romney is a liberal, escapes you.
1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.
2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.
2001 Called first citizens’ petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.
2002 Campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.
Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling)
Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.
Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).
Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.
Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”
Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages — though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.
Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.
March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.
March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.
March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not 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.
April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.
April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).
May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]
May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.
June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”
March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children.
Wow on you.
Keep changing the argument when prior posts are shown to be lies.....
Sounds just like the man you are helping elect. Obama!
You and Pubie are right!
Sarah Palin is wrong on Romney
Newt is wrong on Romney
Michelle Bachmann is wrong on Romney
Rick Santorum is wrong on Romney
Tim Paw is wrong on Romney
The Hermanator is wrong on Romney
.... but you and Pubie are right.
END OF ARGUMENT... You win, since everyone else is wrong and you are right.
We note that, despite the court's admission that the statute prohibits ghomosexual marriage, and the Constitution's statement that only the Legislature can suspend laws, you ordered officials to perform homosexual marriages and thus violate the statute (a crime under c. 207 ˜48), and the oath of office by. Those who refused, you ordered to resign."
There is simply no question that Mitt Romney simply ignored the Massachusetts Constitution, statute law, ancient traditions, social covenants, and his very oath of office, when he forced the adoption and recognition of gay 'marriage' in that state.
That is the very definition of a criminal act, in my observation. And this is but one of many of his heinous transgressions against the trust that was vested in him by the people of Massachusetts.
That he would conspire with radical leftists, using the power of his office to forward their destructive agenda, then have the gall to stand before the American people and ask to be their president, is the very height of hubris.
That Americans who believe in our Constitution, the rule of law, our ancient Judeo-Christian traditions and social covenants, would actually support this enabler of evil for president, is the height of lunacy.
Pshaw, there you go with all that "Constitution" stuff again. Don't you know that people like Mitt Romney don't need to follow the Constitution? The Constitution is just for little people.
I did not.
altura is lying again.
Below is what she wrote verbatim on her favorite hate-FR website.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither of my children are gay and both are very good people, but I can envision a scenario in which I would support gay marriage if one of my children were gay and wanted to marry. I think support is the operative word. A lot of people don't care but are okay with it. So, even though I am not fervently opposed to gay marriage, I really don't care.
One way you can be sure of being zotted is to show any support whatever for gays. I didn't want to be zotted so I said nothing on the gay threads.
I just wanted to say that I am not a homophobe, which seems to be a requirement on Free Republic.
Jim just posted a long screed about fighting on against homosexuals, liberals, and I don't know what all.
What he posted was a long, crazy sounding screed about manning the barricades against homosexuals and various other enemies. I really think the man has lost it and it is kinda sad.
I went through the entire list from Palin down. The two that I vowed not to vote for if they got the nod were Santorum and Romney but yet they would still get my vote AGAINST Obama. He must be removed even with a significantly less than ideal candidate.
In ‘08, it was 4 days before the election that I decided to hold my nose and vote for McCain and that was only Sarah was on the ticket. At the time, I figured that McCain was likely to do as much damage as Obama so I hesitated to commit. Now I know the danger is severe enough that Obama simply must be removed. Allowing him to remain because our intent is pure will not mitigate the damage or alleviate my conscience.
I do not believe the war is over if we elect Romney any more than I did when Bush won in 2000. Constant and eternal vigilance is required. We got to this point incrementally and we may have to rescue it the same way. Obama’s defeat is just the first step on a very long journey to where we should be.
Thank you for the civil discussion.
I don’t want to put words into your mouth but are you saying that Obama made the mess and he should be allowed to continue so we don’t get dirty?
Am I also to assume that you do not have a candidate that you do support (since you did not address that)?
I don’t disagree about what the dems will do (or at least try to do) but if we have a more energized Tea Party type congress we may even be able to circumvent either Romney or Obama. Not everyone is awake yet but much of the mud that the left is trying to sling is ending up on them. Their machine is not as effective as it once was and their continued hypocrisy may work to their disadvantage.
I am no more certain of any of this than you or anyone else but I believe that we must go with the unknown devil rather than the known one since there is no angel. I’m willing to gamble for a better outcome than to try to endure and outlast the devil that we do know.
Perhaps for 2016 but it is too late to mount that campaign now to be effective later this year.
Besides old fellow, I like the cut of that Romney fellow’s jib!
Certainly not Obama, nor the Democrats, alone. This is something that has been building for 50 years, and some might say for even longer (see Woodrow Wilson). The Nelson Rockefeller wing of the Republican party deserve a large part of the blame. They hate Reagan.
I see Obama as more of a Manchurian Candidate tool in this whole effort than a fully involved participant.
I prefer to keep my voting preferences to myself. Merely indicating that I cannot in good conscience vote for Romney attracts enough abuse from the RomneyBots as it is.
Can't disagree with you there.
Someone else on this forum put it much better than I, that one has to give an accounting for their vote at Judgement time. I cannot lend my precious vote to either two of the candidates thrust at me.
Other day they said they did not post under the same name on TrueBlueWhiners and in the same thread had to admit they did but ignore the fact they were caught.
so this is no surprise.
At least a case maybe made for being delusional.
You like more about him than I do even if you left off the sarcasm tag.
I should have been clearer.
Obama is not solely responsible for the course that we are on but no previous president has put the pedal to the metal as he has or so blatantly therefore I cannot justify leaving him in office. Are you suggesting that we let him win so that the ‘we’ don’t get blamed while trying to fix it? That seems to be what you are willing to accept.
I sincerely hope that you are not counting me as a Romneybot, nor have I attacked you. I believe that we are allies who disagree on tactics, not on the goal. I was lurking during the great purge of Romney supporters and they deserved to be purged. They were ignoring the conservative choices and went straight to Romney.
Yes, we will be held accountable on judgment day. We will be judged not only for what we have done but for what we have failed to do. To me, failing to remove Obama is a sin and perhaps a greater one than voting for Romney because the results will be more immediate and more far reaching.
Ok, bender you do what you need to do.
I should that Romney has promoted homosexual marriage/civil unions/agenda.
You have decided to call me a liar, so be it.
I am not voting for a liberal no matter what their name is.
This discussion has nothing to do with those yo have listed, try and keep up.
It has to do with your instance that Romney is not a liberal.
Do what you need to do.
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.