« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Convince Me!

This is the first election cycle that I have been following since its beginning, and in the process both of the Republican candidates I have supported have dropped out.  I supported Rick Perry from the time he entered the race until he left it; I then supported Rick Santorum.  I met Senator Santorum on the campaign trail and after speaking with him I was wishing I had supported him through the entire process.  Now that both of my choices have dropped out, however, I am not fond of any of the remaining candidates.  It doesn’t appear that my preferences will make any difference now, however, because Mitt Romney is going to be our nominee.  I need some convincing as to why I should feel comfortable supporting him when he secures the nomination.

This isn’t meant in any way to be a piece bashing Mitt Romney or taking anything away from his record, neither is this me saying that I would choose President Obama over Romney.  I simply want to convey my thoughts regarding Romney’s record and some of the things that make me very apprehensive to support him.  First, the life is the most important to issue to me when I research a candidate.  If that candidate does not have a solidly pro-life record, I cannot support them (I know it may sound extreme, but that isn’t the point of this post; that’s my personal opinion).  Governor Romney has changed positions on this issue.  While running for Senate against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said (emphasis mine):  “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.”  Later on, while running for President in 2007, he said (emphasis mine):  “And that is why, as a pro-life Republican, I am in favor of having the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.”  Which quote am I supposed to believe?  With life as the most important issue to me, this makes me question Governor Romney’s real beliefs on the issue.  The latest action of his that I can look at to determine which quote is true is his healthcare plan in Massachusetts (which I’ll address later); his healthcare plan provided state funding for abortions.

The government-mandated healthcare plan Governor Romney instituted in Massachusetts was, technically, constitutional according to the 10th Amendment.  Governor Romney says that quite often when he is criticized for that plan, and states that the people of Massachusetts voted for the plan.  However, the people would have never had the chance to vote for that plan had Romney not proposed it.  His explanation of the need for his plan was that he found a way to cover virtually every citizen of Massachusetts; however, when the plan was enacted, 92% of Massachusetts citizens were already insured.  Why a government-mandated plan to cover that last 8%?  I don’t have any way to know Romney’s true intentions when he created this plan, so I won’t say what his motivations were.  All I can say is, I don’t agree with his plan mainly because it was a mandate and because it provided taxpayer money for abortions, as well as provided insurance for illegal immigrants in Massachusetts.

Those are my biggest issues with Romney; his flip-flops actually matter to me more than the healthcare plan, because I know as President he could not create a plan like that for the whole nation.  His position changes in many important areas, not only abortion, do not sit well with me; issues such as immigration, healthcare, the payroll tax cut…even flip-flopping itself.  Today he says that Ronald Reagan’s policies were great; but he has changed positions on that as well.

Honestly, I don’t find too much to like in Mitt Romney.  I realize that he is going to be our nominee and that really, nothing will change that now.  I really do want to support Romney because I believe President Obama will thoroughly destroy my future in a second term; but I need some explanations and/or help in settling these issues I have!  Any takers?

COMMENTS

  • snowshooze

    If he pusses out on that… he will never stand a chance anyhow.
    The alternative is to join the lemmings.
    Romney may be on the right side of the issues right now, but give him the Presidency… and he will flop. As usual.
    A leopard cannot change his spots.
    For all the wishful thinking.

    Neurotics are the ones who build them castles in the sky.
    Psychotics are the people who live in them.

    • JSobieski

      A Romney flop is better than an Obama success

      • snowshooze

        Ha.

        • JSobieski

          If you are so blinded by Romney that you automatically disagree with him—you are a fool.

          Hero worship and its reverse are both bad ideas.

          • JSobieski

            nt

      • redeyes

        How can one be better than the other if they are the same thing?

  • Pingback: more...

  • Pingback: Angelena Sumner

  • Pingback: Dale Gehman

  • Pingback: Carmine Sweeting

  • Pingback: Derek Iozzi

  • Pingback: Lovella Perone

  • Pingback: Antonio Lishman

  • Pingback: Jess Schouweiler

  • Pingback: Gita Eppard

  • Pingback: Janyce Frees

  • Kyle-MI

    They don’t give you the entire picture. Generally, they can be reliable, but it is not always the case. For example, in investing many mutual funds run the disclaimer that past performance is no guarantee of future results. The car companies are a good example of this. For a while no one could compete with US car companies but then they got complacent and circumstances changed. They lost their grip on the market, they did not keep up with technology, and they overpaid their labor. You could have a market strategy of investing in companies that have shown good performance so far, but sometimes that strategy might lead to overpaying for a company or investing in it at its peak right before it goes off a cliff.

    The same is true of people. In another post I gave the example of St. Paul. His initial record was persecution of Christians, but then he was turned into one of the biggest advocates. President Lincoln had a terrible political record, not necessarily on issues but, at least, on political campaigning. General Grant had a horrible record as a businessman but as a general he was finally the one to get Union army on the right track. (You could argue he could have been better on tactics and strategy, but it is hard to argue with his ultimate success.)

    Of course, they are plenty of counter examples where the record does prove future failure. Would I rather have a candidate with both good current positions on the issues as well as a good conservative record? You bet! But a less than perfect record is no reason to write off a candidate or despair.

    Yes, Romney has some problems with his record. Yes, he has changed positions on some issues. There is a danger, but not a CERTAINTY that he could revert back. Or he might be the next Lincoln or Grant. Who knows, future historians might ponder over the lack of political continuity in President Romney’s record in much the same confusion that we are pondering whether we can trust him, now.

    He certainly is on the right side of the issues right now. That has to be worth something. You could support him because you support the same positions on the issues as he does. And that doesn’t mean you have to stay with him if he abandons those positions.

  • checkmate2012

    I would just add that I don’t many people who think the same way they did when they were in their 20′s compared to their 40′s, 50′s or 60′s. People do change their stance on many issues as they grow and gain experience. Outllooks change and its part of being human. So time will tell us his true colors and hopefully we can keep him inside the proverbial color book lines.

  • JSobieski

    Reagan didn’t become more conservative while in office.

    Nixon, Ford, Eisenhower, Bush 41, and Bush 43 all did things in office that were more liberal than their prior records would indicate.

    Kind of like with Supreme Court Justices, I think that for the most part, the record of a President before becoming President represents a max point—-things only go downhill from there.

    Romney may be the exception to that rule—but it would be a striking exception.

  • checkmate2012

    sadly Clinton may be the best example of moving to the middle! Seriously, Reagan as CA governor wasn’t always as conservative as we remember him to be as President. But he changed as he aged.

  • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

    Bill Clinton did with the pushing and shoving by Dick Morris. He went from pushing for Hilarycare and a large tax hike to signing NAFTA, eliminating federal welfare, and reducing capital gains. He never became a conservative, but he did become more conservative to get reelected in 1996.

  • JSobieski

    But kudos on the response.

  • checkmate2012

    and that’s ok. I was joking about Clinton as clearly no conservative but an example of getting pushed as close to the center as anyone I can remember. So hopefully we’ll keep Romney on the right of center.

  • snowshooze

    He’s never been there..and if elected…
    there will be no leverage. None.

  • JSobieski

    If there is a bright side to Romney, it is that we won’t fall asleep. We know we have to keep our eyes on the guy.

    He won’t get the W benefit of the doubt for so many years.

  • snowshooze

    Really. Push with what.
    There will not be anything.

  • checkmate2012

    I think their colors are permanent and don’t change much over time. Look at the Justice Ginsberg- she’s grown further to the left over time. Maybe the most important reason to get any Republican in office right now. What is the W benefit?

  • JSobieski

    You seem ignore at lot of things that happen.

    You have a choice—-pound your chest out of some sense of superiority, or maybe . . . just maybe . . . . think about how politicians are influenced by constituents.

    I know you are capable of more thoughtfulness than you are showing now.

  • checkmate2012

    and mostly more conservative Reps. and Senators hopefully, as in 2010 and the effect of the TEA party.

  • JSobieski

    carry on.

    Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

    If you were communist party member trying to cause damage to the conservative movement—you would be doing exactly what you are doing now.

  • JSobieski

    there is no hope …

  • checkmate2012

    Posted at the same time with the same basic response! Love it!

  • snowshooze

    Great idea.

  • JSobieski

    Grow up. The world is a mean nasty place. We have to choose between bad and worse options sometimes.

    No tooth fairy is going to put a dollar on your pillow.

    No magic wand is going to make life fair, easy, or better.

    Time to remember a moment in your life when your dad told you to get off your butt and trudge through it . . . .

  • JSobieski

    You are better than this.

    Although it is not yet official, you will soon officialyy have an option of bad and significantly worse.

    If you are not smart and sensible enough to act accordingly, I must have overestimated you.

    Look at anything I have written, and you will find nothing positive about Romney until Romney beat Santorum in Wisconsin and for all practical purposes clinched the nomination.

    I am NOT happy about Romney. I wasn’t happy about Perry losing. I wasn’t happy about Fred THompson losing in 2008. I wasn’t happy about Steve Forbes losing in 1996 or 2000.

    But so what? When has the universe promised to make me happy or make you happy? You think we are somehow exempted from all the crap that our ancestors had to survive with a positive attitude.

    Both my grandfathers fought for the Polish army in 1939. If either would have caught me sounding like you tonight on RS, they would have personally kicked my @$$.

  • checkmate2012

    as many on this site still want a different candidate. Romney isn’t the 1st choice of anyone on this website as far as I can tell, but it is what it is. Kicking and complaining isn’t going to change that fact of reality. So unless you have a plan for another sub-standard candidate, what are you going to do? Sink to the depths of getting your way by voting for BHO?

    I really hope not for this country’s sake. But I’m all ears if you have a real viable plan to change reality.

  • snowshooze

    I await the completion of the primary process prior to passing judgement.
    I do not, under any circumstance feel I have to close ranks with the rombots whilst there are about 20 States voices have yet to be heard, and a convention.
    Both of my Grandfathers fought for the good ‘ol USA in WW1.
    But that is neither here, nor there.
    Right now, I think YOUR Grandfathers would be kicking your butt for being a pompous ass.
    Which I had never expected from you, of all.
    Apparently… I overestimated you.

  • JSobieski

    and then you have to decide what you will do.

    Until then, good luck.

    P.S. If you ever want to bet on a sporting event analogous to Romney’s position in the race, please do let me know.

  • snowshooze

    nt

  • samcoastie

    Romney was never in favor of abortion, but he was torn for a time about what government’s role in abortion should be. Ann Romney’s sister-in-law died in an illegal abortion before Roe. I can understand him being torn because of that. The illegality of abortion at that time cost two lives instead of one and it took him a while to deal with it. I choose to believe that his many public statements since 2007 supporting the overturn of Roe and his action as Governor regarding stem-cell research indicator that he is truly in the pro-life camp.

    As far as health-care, Massachusetts was prepared to put single-payer government run health care on the ballot. It would have easily passed in that liberal land of Oz. Romney got the 85% dem legislature to agree to shelve that and come together with medical professionals, insurance companies and patient advocacy groups to see if they could come up with a better solution. What they came up with sucked, but it was way better than single payer. What Mass has now sucks much worse than the original plan that all parties agreed with. The Dems have removed the right of people to opt out of the plan and pay out of pocket, have added a requirement for any but the smallest companies to provide insurance for their workers, have eliminated the option of a catastrphic health care plan by adding more and more requirements to the minimum allowable coverage and offered coverage to illigals. All this was either vetoed by Romney and over-ridden by congress or added after Romney left office. Leaving health care the way it was before he took office was not an option. Had he sat on his hands, there would be no private health insurance in Massachusetts, at all. That would have made it much harder to return to a free market system in the unlikely event the Mass people someday come to there senses.