Redstate

But he can't compete with the hair. That wonderful, perfect hair.

Yes, if hair were the only issue he would be the mane man.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

Nice.

To don your flame suit

Save the planet, Kill yourself

I think that Mitt Romney must have misspoken. Everyone, including Mitt Romney, knows what his former statements were about abortion. If he changed his mind, then of course he used to have previous views before turning pro-life.

You are taking one sentence from a conversational interview and blowing it out of proportion. You should be ashamed for saying that he lied. That is such a harsh word, for what I believe was a verbal gaffe.

At least talk to him before blasting him on the front page of RedState for the whole day.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Misspeaking is not one of Romney's flaws, my friend.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Why am I sceptical of any post by anyone whose membership is measured in hours?

See The World In HinzSight!

refusal to accept a politically correct double standard on race jokes....

Rooster survived thanks to Hens, Justme and c17wife

Cock-a-Doodle-do

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

Must be because I'd only registered about a month earlier (just checked) and was still settling in myself, heh.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You should be ashamed for saying that he lied. That is such a harsh word, for what I believe was a verbal gaffe.

That's a bit Orwellian, don't you think? In Romneyite land does "verbal gaffe" now equal "lie"? If your man weren't such a pitiful candidate outside of the blogosphere I'd be worried about having to learn all the newspeak.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Your right. Romney sucks. That's why John McCain spends most of his time trying to one up him and views him as his main challenger.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

This is an incredible, well-documented post. Outstanding.

I guess if guys like you don't push for it, our candidates and elected leaders won't give it.

Just do us a favor and not call yourself pro-life on any public level that matters.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

If you want to criticize the guy from the previous post, feel free, but the "you guys" points at those of us who are pro-Romney and frankly, just because you don't like Romney on life doesn't give you the right to paint me as not-pro-life.

Use a finer paint brush, please.

I've given thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of my time to get a pro-life president and Senate in place.

That Romney should not call himself pro-life, not that you should not call yourself pro-life.

If you abet a man who lies about his pro-choice past, and support that man over demonstrably more sincere pro-life candidates, then you're not substantively pro-life in the public realm in my book.

At least be honest about the public record of your man Romney.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Can you cite an example of Romney lying about his previous position on this issue?

Or are you just pretending that you listened to the interview?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

....and that of your personal dignity, stop while you're behind.

Ben's post annihilates your silly contention.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

You have failed to come up with a single example of Romney evading this question.

It just makes you look dishonest.

Find me ONE example in the interview.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Unless you're being sarcastic or something.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

It is a detailed catalogue of information about what Romney's position WAS. But Romney has been open about that. (It would be hard not to, of course, in today's environment).

Romney says he has changed his mind. Ben doesn't believe him, which is his prerogative. Trevino seems not to understand the concept of people changing their minds.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

That he has never been pro-choice, and merely clarified himself as pro-life in 2005 after being informed on embryonic stem cell research (which I think is a pretty flimsy argument for someone who's been politically involved his entire life).

However, Ben's post proves that he actually lied in the interview by providing quotes that prove that assertion is false.

Thank you, Ben, I would also highly recommend an old diary written by slim-jim which I saved as a bookmark titled "Mitt Romney & Abortion."

http://slimjim.redstate.com/story/2006/7/14/17504/3239

What a pity this Langley fellow can't figure out what it obvious to you and the rest of the sane folks.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

What he said was he's never CALLED himself pro-choice. Ben's post doesn't prove otherwise. That's why it's a hit piece.

I assume you read Ben's article, so I won't regurgitate quotes that so obviously refute your point, but I'll pose a question that might do further damage.

If someone ever wrote an article about you in a mass media and called you, oh lets say something extreme, an anti-semetic that feasts on dogs (a la Michael Steele), would you correct them?

When the Boston Globe is covering your political race, and states that you are something that you're not, or if your running mate says that there is no difference between yourself and your opponent (who happens to be an openly anti-semetic and a dog eater, and is quite proud of it too), would you say something along the lines of, "No, I'm actually not an anti-semetic and I have never eaten a dog before."?

So I'll say this, is it important that Romney has never said publicly (at least that's been documented) that he's pro-choice? When someone introduces you, do you have to repeat your name to the guest in order to verify you are who you say you are? No, you don't, not when it's right.

The argument that Romney said that he never called himself pro-choice, however acted and spoke like one, was said to be one by friends, family, and newspapers, so he's not lieing is B.S.*

* - I have never called myself a user of profanity, or any of its abbreviations, so when I say I never use profanity on RedState, I am saying the 100% truth.

I think that by saying he changed his position he admits he held the other position. It's not like he's saying "I've always been pro-life." He just never thought of himself as personally pro-choice. Maybe that's true. Maybe when he was saying those things in the 94 campaign, he deluded himself into thinking something that wasn't true.

Maybe I have the benefit of hearing him address this before in a more complete way and that is clouding my view on this. I don't think Romney is trying to pretend he did not say those things.

People will question his timing and that is fine. But, if you follow the way the man lives his life you will know that he walks the walk of a pro-family man. One wife. Five kids. Charity. Service.

The tone of this piece is unbecoming.

I did.

But I am leery of mind changing when it comes hand in hand with a bid for a presidential primary run in the GOP.

He may have had a heartfelt change of heart, I would like to see the details.

I can describe the entire proccess that moved me from pro choice to pro life-and it isn't just an "I changed my mind" general type story.

So I won't say his change of heart isn't real, but I am taking his change of heart with a pretty huge chunk of skepticism.

Romney says his epiphany occurred just two years ago, when discussing stem cell research with a pair of experts from Harvard.

“At one point, one of the two said, ‘this is not a moral issue because we kill the embryos at 14 days‚’ ”

Romney recalls. “And I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction, which is it just hit us hard.

“And as they walked out, I said, ‘Beth, we have cheapened the sanctity of life by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality.’ And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, ‘I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.’ ”

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

It just does.

It makes me wonder if he is just playing games to get my vote, rather than what he really believes.

I am curious, but how many speeches has he given regarding his epiphany within Massachussettes, also, I wonder how somebody who is pro life can still support pro abortion issues.

This is one of those things that I don't understand-this isn't something like guns or free trade, if you truly belief that abortion is wrong, I am not sure how you would continue to support, sign into law and keep the pro choice agenda.

It is a worldview thing. If your worldview says life is sacred, I think any promises to kill life get taken off the table.

Thats the point he never signed any pro-choice laws. He vetoed 4.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

that he would not agree to expand pro-choice rights. He has spoken of this epiphany often the past 2 years.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

has not been. In the interview he clearly said he had never been "pro-choice." What Ben has done is come up with bookoo examples of just the opposite. Like this for example:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/

Now you just can't square that with the idea that he's never been pro-choice. Reason, logic, common sense, and a basic understanding of English grammar and syntax all defy that interpretation.

Now listen, I don't have a problem with a pro-choice candidate running for president. I don't have a problem with a pro-life candidate who used to be pro-choice running. Under the right circumstances (i.e., if he's running against Hillary) I would vote for such a candidate. However, I do have a problem with a pro-? candidate, who won't tell the truth about his past.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Just an FYI: it's spelled "beaucoups", and pronounced "boe-COO".

It's the French equivalent of "a lot" or "big time", as in "Thanks a lot" or "I owe you big time". Americans use it for "a lot" or "very many/much".

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

for a Louisiana guy like myself to make that mistake. I had thought the word was just an American slang word, but I was wrong.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Just return the favor sometime.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Way to unite the so-cons, by saying that you and only you get to pick which candidates are pro-life.

Guess Reagan was a pro-choicer since he signed the first abortion bill. No, his next X number of years as a pro-lifer don't count.

Good logic, trevino.

Romney needs to run for some office as a pro-lifer and win and take action to earn the title. I suggest Senator or Governor of MA or MI. He could have run for re-election, but he didn't. He's won one election, and he won it as a pro-choice politician.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

We are but warriors for the working-day.

I don't decide who's pro-life. People decide that for themselves.

I, Ben, and the rest of us who aren't getting the vapors over the dashing boy-governor from Massachusetts merely apply ordinary standards of honesty to the situation.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

I, Ben, and the rest of us who aren't getting the vapors over the dashing boy-governor from Massachusetts merely apply ordinary standards of honesty to the situation.

I think it's time you get over yourself. I know you think your really great, but comments like these show a certain sense of high mindedness that hasn't been earned. I think most of us on here are honest people, even though we disagree.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I made that comment before I read anything by you.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

I, Ben, and the rest of us who aren't getting the vapors over the dashing boy-governor from Massachusetts merely apply ordinary standards of honesty to the situation.

I think it's time you get over yourself. I know you think your really great, but comments like these show a certain sense of high mindedness that hasn't been earned. I think most of us on here are honest people, even though we disagree.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

... that means I'm not substantively pro-life, then? (Granted, wouldn't bother me, I use the Dennis Miller triangulation on the issue; I consider myself pro-choice, but anti-abortion.) That is a pretty broad brush to paint people with, and our discourse deserves better. The thing is, though, I don't see too many conservatives letting slide a judicial appointment by a Republican president who is demonstrably pro-Roe, and any efforts to be made by such would receive the Harriet Miers treatment. We all know that.

Even though abortion is a great winning issue for our side most of the time, we can't demogogue the issue within our own side, at the risk of sounding more and more like the shrillness of the moonbats. Just because the Democrats threw Casey Sr. under the bus for his pro-life stance at a national convention doesn't mean that we should do the same to pro-choicers in our ranks. We have way too many important issues in this country to worry about to let ourselves get sidetracked by one that the odds still aren't that good that we'll be able to do much of anything on it in the immediate future.

"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."

just about every poll on the issue shows those who identify as republicans consistently support at least some form of legal abortion at about 70% while those saying none at all consistently poll in the upper 20s. The numbers may move a few points back and forth in any given year, but not meaningfully.

My personal view is it does a party no good when a minority cuts down a viabale candidate who they agree with on most issues simply because of his stance on any one. This applies to 'the base' on the abortion issue as well as the Dems on various moonbat issues.

Romney doesn't do it for me, but I'm not going to run around dissing him either- I'll save that for the other party's candidate, tyvm.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

...republicans consistently support at least some form of legal abortion at about 70% while those saying none at all consistently poll in the upper 20s.

National polls that include Democrats all indicate that over 50% support restricting abortion on demand and want access to abortion restricted significantly. Even the last polls commissioned by that bastionne of conservatism, NARAL, showed that.

In order to get to the numbers you are quoting, you have to include as "supporters" people who favor allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I consider myself pro-choice, but anti-abortion.

I respect more those with the spine to serve evil forthrightly.

That is a pretty broad brush to paint people with, and our discourse deserves better.

Not really.

The thing is, though, I don't see too many conservatives letting slide a judicial appointment by a Republican president who is demonstrably pro-Roe....

Are you forgetting already the quite substantive and shrill chorus of self-described conservatives who stood by The Leader during the Miers pick? Say, what's Hewitt up to these days? I think your counsel of peace of mind is premature.

Just because the Democrats threw Casey Sr. under the bus for his pro-life stance at a national convention doesn't mean that we should do the same to pro-choicers in our ranks.

That logic only holds if the issue has no moral quality. Which it does.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

... that means I'm not substantively pro-life, then? (Granted, wouldn't bother me, I use the Dennis Miller triangulation on the issue; I consider myself pro-choice, but anti-abortion.) That is a pretty broad brush to paint people with, and our discourse deserves better.

Why not just be pro-choice and argue for that position forthrightly? It's not a disgrace to be pro-choice. Lot's of people I like are pro-choice. Rudy, for one.

But to say you're pro-choice but anti-abortion? Well, I'm pro-free speech but anti-bullsh**.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Mitt should run for Bennett's seat or Hatch's seat when they retire and help President Mike Pence enact fiscal discipline and market-based reforms to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare reform.

If Kerry is giving up his Senate seat to run for President, though . . .

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

When has Sen. Bennett been a leader on anything? If we replaced him with Romney, I think Romney would be a powerful and effective spokesman for free-market, fiscal conservative movement issues. I think he would be a very powerful Senator who could help the GOP shore up our western front where we are seeing some erosion.

I just meant it wouldn't be a net gain for the GOP - one Republican replacing another. Knocking off a Dem in MA or MI would strengthen control of the Senate.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Go back to Utah you stinking Mormon... you got to be kidding me. I hope you were joking.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

When Mitt was running the Salt Lake Olympics, there was considerable talk about him running for office...in Utah. I'm not the first to bring this up. He also has a tremendous base of support...in Utah.

What's wrong with suggesting that a candidate run to represent an area where he has a lot of support?

I can't think of any top tier candidates in Utah could either beat him or be a better senator from that state.

Romney is the executive type and I suspect he will retire from seeking election after 08 if not elected. After all he really is more of a business man.

If I miss judged your intention I apologize. My only excuse is I have been seeing a lot of, "I will never vote for a Mormon" around here.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

I took you literally (below) when you said (above) "... stinking Mormon ...". I didn't realize you were mocking someone else in the thread.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

You may be justified anyway. What I said was a little inflammatory (ok a lot) and maybe I should have toned it down a little.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

I'm not that kind of person, but everytime I read that (and there's been some of that on this thread and on this site in general,) it disgusts me, too. So...I understand.

I still think that Mitt Romney could bring his executive experience to the senate and have a tremendous impact. Many governors go on to be senators. Granted, usually of the same state - but I don't think that he could win in Massachusetts. Michigan? Perhaps, but I think we have a pretty deep and resurgent field there. Just judging by the Utah congressional delegation, I think we're a bit weak there and Mitt would be a powerful voice on important issues from that state.

I mean...his ties to Utah are stronger than Hillary's ties to New York, that's for sure.

That was rude. By all means, disagree with their religion, and believe (as I do) following Mormon teachings will make you burn for eternity. But leave the pejoratives out of it.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

first impression it gives. Just a friendly heads up. I had to read it several times before I understood that you were trying to sum up someone else's position, not yours.

In any case, I'm not sure it's justified even as a satire.

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

Yes, I miss the parent feature of the old red state. Before this thread became overwhelmed with comments though it was just below the original and made a little more sense. I apologize again if you took offense

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

The parent link made it a lot easier to avoid getting lost.

absentee

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

These ought to be our two greatest domestic priorities (the GWOT being the greatest foreign policy priority) and they happen to be two issues where Republicans are vulnerable. Romney to his credit is focusing on Medicare as well as rather than just Social Security reform which puts him light years ahead of most of the likely contenders in either party.

Also if he runs on reigning in spending and on his skills as an executive, it would help distance himself from Bush who is perceived (with some justification on the former) as being weak in those areas. It gives us a chance to elect another Republican as President while minimizing the “fatigue” that might lead voters to think it’s time for to put a Democrat in the White House (who would probably get at least one, maybe even two Supreme Court nominees).

As far as Roe goes, it’s not an issue that a President can do much about one way or the other. None of us know who the next Supreme Court nominees are going to be (who among us predicted Roberts and Alito in 2004?) and no one knows with any reasonable degree of certainty how a justice will vote on any particular issue. Unfortunately many people have convinced themselves that by focusing almost exclusively on this issue and subjecting candidates to these bizarre litmus tests (I particularly like the one about how McCain who has supported all of Bush’s judicial nominees would supposedly not nominate similar nominees because of some bizarre anti-Roe = anti-McCain-Feingold calculus).

IMO abortion politics has become little more than a bludgeon used to demonize candidates one doesn’t like by playing to the worst fears of the base.

Let's get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because Jack Bauer does not feel like carrying you.

1. A president can do a lot about Roe depending on what kind of justices he nominates.

2. The type of justices a president nominates is largely reflective of what type of person the president is, although some have admitted a few mistakes.

3. Roberts was a surprise, but Alito was always a front-runner.

4. McCain-Feingold and Roe are both clearly erroneous rulings. The difference between the two is that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional and Roe is extra-constitutional. The widely held and credible belief in the legal community is that if a justice is willing to uphold a ruling that is a direct assault on the constitution, it seems that the same justice would similarly have even less compulsion to overturn a ruling that is merely extra-constitutional. After all, it may not actually be in the constitution, but it isn't completely contradictory to it, either.

Any justice who would uphold a direct assault on the Constitution but strike down extra-constitutional precedence is clearly doing little more than flipping a coin in chambers.

Thus, what we are likely to get are justices who not only uphold McCain-Feingold under a president McCain (*shudders*) as well as previous liberal precedence, but ALSO (and this is the REALLY important part) participate in creating MORE extra-constitutional and unconstitutional precedence.

Roberts was a surprise, Alito was always on the "wish list," and both have proved to be absolutely stellar.

On Roberts, I have to say that Dubya actually outsmarted all of us. I truly believe that he will be remembered for ages as one of the most brilliant and influential justices since John Marshall once all is said and done. Additionally, I think that he will even rival Antonin Scalia in the hearts and minds of conservatives - not for what he says so much as Scalia - but for what he accomplishes.

Scalia's brilliant, scathing rhetoric and talent for turning a phrase that makes conservatives giddy will probably always outshine anything that Roberts delivers to us. But then, Roberts gives us the more sobering retorts such as, "it is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."

1. A president can do a lot about Roe depending on what kind of justices he nominates.

And has been pointed out so often the past, it’s almost impossible to predict how a judge will vote on a particular issue. Reagan gave us Kennedy, O’Connor, and Scalia. Bush 41 gave us Souter and Thomas.

2. The type of justices a president nominates is largely reflective of what type of person the president is, although some have admitted a few mistakes.

Based on what? No self-respecting judge is going to pledge (and if s/he does, she violates the judicial canons) on how s/he will rule on an issue that might come before the court?

3. Roberts was a surprise, but Alito was always a front-runner.

Not really, Alito was Bush’s second choice after Meirs stepped down and up until he was announced most people were predicting Luttig or McConnell. Before that it was a question of which of the two Ediths would get picked. And before that it “anybody but Gonzales.”

And then we get to the most ridiculous argument thrown out by the McCain-haters:

4. McCain-Feingold and Roe are both clearly erroneous rulings. The difference between the two is that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional and Roe is extra-constitutional. The widely held and credible belief in the legal community is that if a justice is willing to uphold a ruling that is a direct assault on the constitution, it seems that the same justice would similarly have even less compulsion to overturn a ruling that is merely extra-constitutional. After all, it may not actually be in the constitution, but it isn't completely contradictory to it, either.

Then under your logic, Chief Roberts and Justice Alito will both be pro-Roe votes because (a) John McCain supported them as he did all of Bush’s nominees and (b) they were appointed by a President who (in your words) signed into law McCain-Feingold which is supposedly a “direct assault on the constitution.” Under your logic we shouldn’t trust any of Bush’s nominees anymore than McCain’s because he’s just as culpable if not more so for McCain-Feingold.

Not for me, thanks. I won't vote for anyone who wants to do what he has done vis a vis healthcare...

Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans

especially since Mitt at least is now saying (and has been acting as governor) as a pro-lifer.

And why doesn't it sink McCain for that matter since he's less likely to appoint strict constructionalists who might strike down his anti-Free Speech and hence be less likely to be pro-life.

I am not going to try to say Romney hasn't changed his mind here. He is being a politician with his words. Reagan changed his mind, too, but he was a friend to the pro-lifers.

There is no comparison between Rudy and Mitt's positions, and McCain's voting record. Except indirectly through CFR (which is the real reason to not support McCain), he is one of the most solid pro-life senators by voting record. But just because McCain is not a candidate to support does not mean he does everything wrong. On this issue he is one of the strongest. Go to NRLC and check the voting record.

. . . when it comes to the BCFR Act which most of us seem to loathe, it didn’t stop any of us from voting to reelect President Bush when he signed it into law after promising to veto it did it?

It seems to me that McCain, while I disagree with him on this issue, was upfront about what he wanted and why he wanted it. Bush caved in and did the wrong thing yet I and I others were able to forgive him for it and support his reelection in 2004.

In which case if I could support Bush in 2004 who signed the BCFR Act into law (after promising to veto it), I cannot very well then say it would prevent me from supporting McCain in 2008 for authoring the same piece of legislation. Unless one of the other candidates promises to try to repeal the legislation (fat chance), IMO we all need to recognize that this is pretty much a non-issue and judge the candidates on how the differ on the rest of their qualifications and on the issues.

Let's get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because Jack Bauer does not feel like carrying you.

...at best. McCain has been 100% pro-life from the beginning. Yes, he's terrible on campaign finance reform, but First Amendment policial free speech law is not as easily divided into liberals and conservatives as you think. It's audacious to say that McCain would not appoint strict constructionists without any more support than that.

I should have just agreed on Guiliani.

Although I still don't like the comparison since Romney has changed this position while Guiliani has not.

When he said he did not want to see Roe overturned. As far as constructionists go, they would throw out any of his attempts at legislating away the first Amendment. He isn't going to appoint anyone to SCOTUS that would interfere with one of his highest priorities. Anyone who would vote to uphold restrictions on political speech clearly doesn't care much about the constitution and would likely be able to find a right to abortion somewhere in the penumbra.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Rudy's got a lot of crap sinking him -- more than Romney, even. I'm not sure what world you're in wherein his pro-abortion position doesn't harm him in pro-life eyes.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Rudy has a lot of fans among mainstream Republicans, and it shows in numerous straw polls here at RS and elsewhere.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

....I just remembered a conversation I had in which a self-declared social conservative exhibited exactly the attitude you describe.

Those people are wrong.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

There is a strong spirit of wishful thinking. "He would be a strong executive, good fiscal policy, he was great on 9/11, he must agree with me on abortion." It is a leap made by many social conservatives, including many on this site, and it is not justified at all.

I don't think anyone believes he will change his position. It just so happens that being pro-choice on a LOCAL level can be exactly the same as bing in favor of appointing strict constructionist judges.

If you believe as I do that all such social legislation should be at the state level and the feds should butt out. I have heard Giuliani make similar statements. Now, he needs to elucidate his position more. But if he did pledge to appoint Scalia-Thomas type judges I would support him for his other qualities.

Romney seems to have the same baggage so why is he supported more by some social conservatives?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The difference is that the people who are firmly behind Rudy aren't behind him because of his stand on social issues - they're behind him because of his record of tremendous leadership. His attempt to placate the social conservatives has been his adoration of Roberts and Alito and his thus far successful attempts to hide behind federalism as a shield. Rudy would also be unquestionably solid on the Global War on Terror. He is the classical neocon's candidate.

That leaves social cons and fiscal, free-market cons looking for a candidate. Mitt may be able to shore up the fiscal free-market cons, but he's faltering on the social cons.

In the end the GOP needs a candidate who unites all of these factions, and if any candidate wins by only appealing to one of these, then he is going to be very weak going into the general election.

That's why we need Mike Pence. He unites every important GOP constituency.

with your unsupported claim that Romney is losing So-cons. He's not losing me and trust me, I'm about as So-con as it gets. He hasn't lost Jerry Falwell.

He hasn't lost most people who I talk to about it.

If you really believe in it. I remember a time when federalism was a big part of the Republican party.

On appointing judges and on fiscal matters I have to hear more from Giuliani before I give him my full support.

But that goes for any nominee. I especially want to hear that they are willing to veto legislation coming even from a Republican congress if it is filled with pork.

As for Pence, time will tell, as of now he has nearly no name recognition.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Hiding might have been the wrong word. It sounds disingenuous - which I do not yet know if it is - and that is not what I intended to imply at all.

If it ends up being one of the only areas where Rudy endorses strengthening federalism, then "hiding" may well fit. If, however, he advocates a strong and robust federalist society, then he will be bolding declaring it, and it will just conveniently shield him from a hot topic.

I think I would be skeptical of Rudy, if he all the sudden decided he was pro life-in the heat of a presidential run.

A sort of, well he isn't pro life, but at least he isn't trying to snow me about his position, type deal.

That said, I think at some point Rudy's pro choice positions along with some other social conservative ones may hurt him.

Rudy is one I would vote for in a general, but I don't think I could vote for him in a primary-but I admit I am leery of voting for people who take a position simply to court my vote, I would rather they be honest with their position, and tell me why I should vote for them anyway.

I don't think you are going to hear Rudy backing down from any of his past positions. I think he has too much personal integrity and respect for the voters' intelligence to do that. The appeal of the man is based on his strength of character. I'm sure he's well aware of this.

Rudy Giuliani is an executive. After putting much of the NYC mafia out of business as DA, he cleaned up a cesspool of crime, vagrancy, and drug ridden neighborhoods that plagued NYC for years, and had gotten significantly worse under David Dinkens. The city was beyond dead broke when he took over. He turned that all around in his two terms. Granted, he had the luck of being in power as mayor of the world's capitol city during the greatest economic expansion in modern history. I had the luck of being there to take part and witness much of it. I took my Y2K blood money and moved to the midwest from NYC in 8/00. It was obvious the boom was over. Pardon me, I digress.

I love Rudy Giuliani. The man would be an outstanding president if granted the opportunity. His pro-choice stand will certainly cost him some votes, but I don't those folks would be voting for the Democrat either, it's a non-vote for both. If he makes it through the primary process I think he would Hillary, or whomever the Dems ran, their figurative lunch. It's a big "if". Social Issues seem to carry more weight these days than fiscal issues these days. I don't agree with that, but that's just the way it is.

on some positions. I think he will say he now opposes partial birth abortion. He has already been praising conservative judges.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

Is not that a person can't have a change of heart, the point is that he lied in his interview and pretended he was never something that he actually was.

I don't really listen to the RS Interviews, not particularly liking the medium, but I'm glad you guys highlighted this bit.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.