Redstate

We need to win in '06 before worrying about '08.

That being said, Huckabee is not underrated he is another "Big Government Conservative" like President Bush.  The Club for Growth is already gunning for him.  I don't see how he has any chance.  He is a preacher from the South who raises taxes, all of those qualities upset different groups.  I would have slotted Pawlenty in your last place.

Loved your analysis of Romney especially.

You make a great case for McCain as the favorite, esp given that Sanford and Graham support him, but I simply cannot see the conservative base swallowing his maverick diversions, esp since it now includes his insulting rhetoric on amnesty for illegals, including statements that praise illegals at the expense of native citizens and give them greater rights with respect to taxes, ID fraud, etc.

But I could be wrong. Mccain actually worries me, what with his temper, temperment, advocacy for lawyers for illegal enemy combatents, opposition to the right to pass on one's property to one's heirs, and gleeful backstabbing that has left him with few friends ...

If only he were a maverick on other issues!

Rudy and Allen have been rock solid on the war.

I do think that Rudy could win the conservatives over before Mccain ever would.

But I think the liklihood is that it will come down to Allen vs Romney. I don't see any of the allegations against Allen sticking, and his conservative credentials are as good as anyone's. Romney may rise and fall on his health care plan in Massachsetts, and how it is received by consrvatives there as it is implemented.

Gingrich wont run.

more later

...when I said underrated, I'm meant as far as his chances of winning the GOP nomination goes.

Lost a bit of thunder with the online crowd with that TNR piece, but don't underestimate him.  He is a very popular ex-governor and a strong victory in the Fall would cement him as a serious contender for 2008.  I somehow doubt that revelations that he whupped up on his sister and wore a Confederate flag on his lapel in high school are going to torpedo him.  I myself would happily disavow everything I said and did before my 21st birthday...and I'm only 24.  He is fairly well-spoken and his conservative bonafides are as good as anyone in the field.  Can he come across as a bit ridiculous at times?  Sure, but it would be a mistake to underestimate him.  

Great analysis Bij.  The only things I'd add are that

1. Romney's unpopularity in the uber-northeast will actually help him in the Republican primary.  What primary voter actually wants to see crowds of MA residents with "go-Romney" signs?  I'm guessing Romney will continue to distinguish himself from the democrats he governs.
   
2. I was surprised to see no serious mention of Romney's reputation as Turnaround King.  If you can mention fiscal restraint for Newt, the same goes for Romney.  Newt and Romney are the only hopes I see for balancing the budgets AND keeping down taxes.

McCain will be hammered in S.C. and on Super Tuesday for his against the Marriage Protection Amendment...unless, of course, he dramatically flip-flops on the issue when it comes up for a vote again the summer prior to the 2008 election.

In addition to his church membership, Romney's past but emphatic support for Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, homosexual Scoutmasters, and other elements of the homosexual agenda -- all anathema to his own church's values -- are also anathema to GOP primary voters in S.C. and on Super Tuesday.

Rudy and Pataki fare no better on these issues.

Allen's flip-flop on adding "sexual orientation" to federal hate crime laws -- promised to oppose, then voted for, then admitted voting for was a mistake -- the exact same kind of language used to threaten Christians with prosecution for daring publicly disagree with homosexual behavior, will no doubt be widely discussed among social conservatives.

Huckabee and Brownback have solid records on issues of concern to Southern social conservatives, but both are weak on immigration and apparently the Club (which I support) has problems with Huckabee.

Here's hoping that some other alternatives present themselves in the next two years.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong here, but i know graham has pretty much endorsed Mccain this time around but i thought sanford was reserving judgement?  I know one of the reasons he supported him was b/c of pork in 2000.  I for the life of me can't remember where but i think i remember sanford saying he was nuetral at this point.  

I also remember that sanford and allen are also friends.

At this point we know graham is in mccain's pocket for SC, Demint is on Allen's side i beleive, and sanford is in the air.

I doubt McCain will suddenly support another MPA in 2008.  More likely, he'll explain his vote against it as a vote for states' rights.  Depending on how emphatic he is against gay marriage, he might succeed in convincing many that the states are the right place to battle this.  (and he would have far more credibility on this than democrats would)

I'm not against the MPA, that's just how the story will be told.

First of all, Romney never supported homosexual scoutmasters.  You repeating this mantra over and over will not make it true.  What he's said is:

1. He believes everyone should be allowed to participate as scouts
   
2. He supports the BSA's right to do whatever it wants on the matter

Secondly, he is solidly against Roe vs. Wade as a "one-size-fits-all" solution.  He's on record in favor of a federalist approach to abortion,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4362623183954478320&q=romney

and voters will trust his track record of keeping his campaign promises.

3. Third, Romney walks the walk on family values in a way that other GOP nominees cannot.  Voters will see this and take note.

GG,

You can't possibly be against ALL of the potential GOP nominees, can you?  

You've picked them apart for one reason or another to such a degree that it shows you won't be happy with any electable conservative candidate.  Your kind of politics is the best thing Hillary can hope for.

Sanford has said he won't endorse until later.

"I am not committed at this point," said Sanford, who acknowledged that "a long list of characters" considering the 2008 race have reached out to him. "I am really going to look very hard at somebody who will espouse that notion of fiscal discipline and financial stewardship. That would be at the top of my list."

Sanford said he has every intention to pick a candidate in the '08 field at some point. "I'm gonna get involved," he said. "I am in the process of governance because it gives you leverage in terms of trying to push for the ideas you believe in. One of the biggest debates on ideas and where they go next is obviously the presidency."

Assuming he is reelected to a second term this November, Sanford will emerge as one of the two most important GOP political powerbrokers in the state not aligned with a 2008 candidate. Sen. Lindsey Graham is backing McCain. The other uncommitted lawmaker in a statewide post is Sen. Jim DeMint. (Rep. Joe Wilson is with Sen. George Allen (Va.)

Don't expect a Sanford endorsement the day after the November election. He said he wants "to take a complete inventory of who best matches up with where I'm coming from" before declaring support for a 2008 candidate.

I would still be quite surprised if he does not support McCain.  There are cabinet or VP positions in a McCain Presidency that Sanford would probably fill quite well.

I wonder where DeMint will end up and if he will decide he really wants to take on Sanford and/or Graham by going his own way.

Anyone tracking the correlation between DeMint and Graham in the Senate or is DeMint so much more conservative than Graham that they are on differing sides of things.

They are not big fans. Neither am I from what I know of the guy.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. You are quite correct on Mike Huckabee. For those of you basing your opinions about Huckabee solely on what The Club for Growth says, you really need to please take time to learn the facts for yourselves. The Club for Growth is not giving you the correct picture. Huckabee is a fiscal conservative working in a state with a legislature controlled entirely by Democrats. Arkansas' Governors have very little veto power, and 95% of the state's budget is tied up in prisons, Medicaid and education. Prisons and health care costs are exploding and the state is under Supreme court order to massively increase spending on education. Huckabee also inherited a state with a horribly neglected and crumbling infrastructure (highways) that was significantly impacting the state's primary business (tourism). Huckabee fixed it all on time and within budget in less than 10 years and the state's economy is health and growing once again. There is now a surplus in Arkansas approaching $300 million and Huckabee is championing a rebate of these funds to the taxpayers AND a total reform of the state's tax system. He's a leader and fantastic executive.

BSR

For Huckabee facts and information:

http://www.mikehuckabeepresident2008.blogspot.com

Thanks!

You mean Romney's campaign promise to do nothing about abortion? Wow. I'm impressed.

BSR

I think he's talking about his promises to:

-Balance the budget and create a surplus without raising taxes. Check.

-Make Massachusetts the nation's leader in education. Check.

-Create a conservative solution to the health care problem without increasing the size of government. Check.

Yeah, things like that.

The Baxter (Ark.) Bulletin Nanny statism. The state telling pregnant women what they can and can't do.

The Arkansas News Bureau More nany statism. Banning smoking.

The London Times More nanny statism. A "fat report" for kids.

The Club for Growth Links to an Ark. Dem. Gazette ($) piece where Huckabee lambastes oil companies for their profits.

The Club for Growth is wrong about him? How? These are not bills that were forced through. These are all his words supporting a Nanny State. He obviously favors government dicta over the people's ability to choose their own behavior. This does not bode well for a presidential candidate.

If "Huckabee is..in a state with a legislature controlled entirely by Democrats," and "Arkansas' Governors have very little veto power," then how can you attribute the credit to Huckabee for "fixing it?" Either he gets credit for the success and blame for the failure or he gets neither.

Romney has inherent advantages when you look at the expected primary schedule. Early states include New Hampshire, where Romney gets a lot of coverage; Michigan, where Romney's father was once governor and where Romney is expected to base his campaign; and Arizona, which has a large Mormon population. He also has big support in Iowa and has campaigned significantly in South Carolina.

I have little problem with your well-reasoned post, but I would put Romney at #3, at least.

Demint is much more conservative than graham is.  He's one of the few people who ran on the flat tax i believe.  

These are the same value voters and family groups whom romney told to stay away from him in his 1994 candidacy for senate.

Could you give a source on that statement of Romney's where he told values voters to stay away?

Sorry if this is pressing you too hard to back up a statement...

I think its perfectly OK for people to choose their own negative behaviors when they foot the bill for the consequences all by themselves. Unfortunately thats not the case. Hundreds of thousands of people in Arkansas, and millions upon millions around the country, have taxpayer funded health care (Medicaid, Medicare) and their negative behavioral choices lead to serious preventable medical conditions like heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes, and low birth-weight babies as well as procedures like knee and hip replacements, gastric bypasses, neo-natal intensive care, and back surgeries. Not to mention special equipment like wheelchairs, buggies and special beds and toilets for obese folks. The grand total estimated cost to the taxpayers (like YOU) is in the BILLIONS PER MONTH. And if these costs are not brought under control, your children and grandchildren will be footing the bills for these folks to a degree that causes them to have a lower standard of living than the previous generation for the first time in American history.

So yes, under these circumstances, I think its time to start defending the interests of the taxpayers -- and save a few million lives to boot.

BSR

On a number of occasions Huckabee has gone around the legislature to get a public vote to approve his plans for righting the sinking ship he inherited. Examples: public vote to approve his plan for rebuilding Arkansas interstate highways with a bond issue (ledge wanted to raise taxes or put in toll roads to do it) and public vote to approve his plan to spend Arkansas' tobacco settlement money only on health improvement programs (ledge wanted no restrictions on how it was to be spent).

Is it legal to post the article from a lexis nexis search? If not i can just PM it to you.

Michigan, where Romney's father was once governor and where Romney is expected to base his campaign;

Do you have any information to back that statement?  And I really doubt Romney has any more support in Michigan than he would in any other state just because of his father.  I have never seen a Michigan 08' poll where he's placed higher than fourth, and I can think of one in specific of a recent Michigan GOP Convention where he placed eigth.

And also, the Michigan primary is the fourth primary/caucus, and the race will be for the most part over by then.  Iowa will limit it to four, New Hampshire probably to three, with South Carolina probably claiming it.  So why would the Romney campaign ever base itself in Michigan?

I don't disagree that Romney is a terrific politician and executive. But I do strongly disagree with the fact that a supposedly pro-life person in a position of leadership and influence willingly stood by and did nothing while literally hundreds of thousands of human babies were aborted around him. He's either not really pro-life or he's such a callous political opportunist that he was unwilling to even try. Whether or not he thought he had a chance to make a difference, I believe he was obligated to at least try. Those defenseless babies deserved at least that much. I believe you will find that most Republicans will put the value of even a single human life far above the value of Romney's successes in other areas.

Romeny's weakness and Romney's strength is one and the same.

Romney is 80% to 90% of what everyone wants, but none of the Republican sub-groups get a 100% of what they want.  (They only possible exceptions are pure fiscal conservatives).

Everybody is intrigued by Romney, and he makes perfect sense as the compromise candidate, (even better than Allen I think), but how often does a compromise candidate win a primary?

Will people be willing to settle for 80% of a loaf?  Or will people insist on their "perfect" candidate?

I guess I am one of Romney's supporters around here, but only because my first two choices (Condi and Jeb) are not running- and that may be why Romney could win.  The perfect social and fiscal combination (Jeb Bush) is not running.  The inspiring libertarian-type Condi Rice is not running.  Both of the other potential marque candidates (Rudy and McCain) have major problems with the Republican base.  I don't think Allen will take off, and I don't think Rudy can win, (though he could be a major disruption and win 30% of the delegates).  So I think the frontrunner is McCain, and we will see who will be the challenger: Newt, or Mitt?

BSR,

What would you have him do instead?

1. Campaign in 2002 on a promise to restrict abortions.  He'd lose to Shannon O'Brien, leading to even more liberal abortion law in MA.  Not only that, conservatives abandon all other political fronts as well.
   
2. Campaign in 2002 on a promise to make no change to abortion law, while secretly planning to break that promise.  This would still have no change in the numbers of abortions since the legislature is 85% democrat.  
   
3. Not run for office in such a liberal abortion happy state in the first place.  This has the same effects as #1.

So again, what would you have him do differently, bearing in mind that he is governor and not King?

But Mass. has pretty strict restrictions on abortion compared to most liberal states.  Mass. requires parental notification (or was it parental permission), and this was the main way abortion entered into the Governor's race.  Romeny campaigned on maintaining that restriction, the Democrat campaigned to remove that restriction.

By the way, any Mass. natives out there, if I got this wrong please say so.  I am not an expert on Mass.

I'm not really sure where this supposed conservatism is supposed to come in. I can hear all the same arguments from laundry list of liberal Democrats. You aren't exactly making the case for Huckabee.

public vote to approve his plan for rebuilding Arkansas interstate highways with a bond issue (ledge wanted to raise taxes or put in toll roads to do it)

Sounds like Arnold. Arnold equates bonds with free money too. That the guy likes to borrow money to pay for things doesn't seem like much of an argument in his favor.

public vote to approve his plan to spend Arkansas' tobacco settlement money only on health improvement programs (ledge wanted no restrictions on how it was to be spent)

What a great idea. So it can be wasted on things like anti-smoking PSAs? As opposed to being used to build the previously mentioned roads?

How many people are 100% pleased with any of the choices? Very, very few. If someone is 100% pleased with any of the candidates, they are probably a relative or an employee.

Romney...In fact you dissed every candidate. Who pray tell DO you support...or are you only into mud?

Fascinating stuff. Don't disagree with a word.

If Rudy runs, a McCain-Guiliani ticket is a distinct possibility, isn't it? Somehow I can't imagine McCain as the jr. partner on a ticket. But I can imagine Rudy capping his career as the VP nominee. That would be one high-wattage ticket. Ain't no way they wouldn't at least be competitive in New York and California, even against Hillary, I reckon.

and I started a Mitt Romney website.

I don't think your in a position to speak on behalf of values voters. Are you there leader?

From the July 3rd issue of The Weekly Standard:

"Both candidates realize how important Michigan is, and they're acting accordingly. Romney's national campaign headquarters is currently under construction in Oakland County. McCain is also active on the ground; his PAC recently announced it was giving over $120,000 to county and local parties in Michigan."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/368gtpeb.
asp?pg=2

Because basing himself in MA gives him nothing, as does basing his campaign in Utah.

He has no connection to SC whatsoever. His moving there would be totally transparent.

He was born and raised in MI. His name is known by everyone in the state. By basing his campaign in MI he puts this critical wing state in play in the general election.

BTW, don't believe any poll from the American Research Group. McCain 10 points up on Hillary in CT? Please!

Please take a look at the blog at www.race42008.com whenever you get a chance.

Shoot me an email and let me know what you think.

...wasn't Graham on the gang of 14?

I don't think that any of the touted candidates are what GOP voters are looking for. There is room for somebody to come in from nowhere and take the nomination. Maybe a Rick Perry or Haley Barbour or Bill Owens.

a lot of weight in Michigan. His father was a very popular Governor. I think his numbers in this state will rise significantly.

McCain, Giuliani, and Allen are to us what Lieberman, Clark, and Kerry were to the Democrats.

Don't we have someone who represents us better?  Of course Gingrich would be our Dean (in terms of inability to win the primary or the general), so I don't want him, but still...

...Governor Sanford?

Gosh I wish he'd change his mind!

There are some definite CW favorites, but a dark horse cannot be ruled out. Barbour's a distinct possibility. As is Brownback. As is Tancredo. I don't know Perry's going to get by Kinky Friedman -- I'm dead serious. If the convention were deadlocked -- people talk about this every four years, and, though I know it's a loooooong shot, one of these years it may happen -- I think Jeb and Condi would definitely be in the mix.

Isn't he pro gay marriage, anti death-penalty? I can't see that playing well in Texas.

...but Arkansas' roads had to be re-built after decades of neglect. It was not an option. Their roads were ranked among the worst in the nation, bridges were becoming unsafe to use..all of  which was hurting trucking and tourism. And Arkansas' tobacco tax settlement would have covered only a tiny fraction of the cost to rebuild the roads. Instead, Huckabee wanted it spent on programs that to help people quit smoking and incentivize them to lead healthier lifestyles, which serves to lower the cost of the state's #1 expense line item: publicly financed health care.

He was.  The sad thing about graham was that he used to be one of the good guys, he ran with sanford and coburn back in the day.  Of course as soon as he was elected to the senate he got stars in his eyes and went rino on us.

Thanks especially for getting me to take a 2nd look at Romney.  Sean & Rush have been pumping Allen but I've just not found any passion for the man.  I watched the clip from Rose with Romney; I've seen him in the past and been impressed and the clip added to my interest.  

As a southern evangelical I can tell you that liberalism is the religion that gets our side out to vote against it. The problem will be if there is only a choice between two liberals.  If you have both a Democrat & Republican who are not sincerely pro-life, our side will NOT turn out; mark it down right now.  Neither McCain nor Giuliani will get many southern evangelicals out to vote unless Hillary is running, which I believe is not likely.  Kerry against either of those guys would be close (but our side would likely win).  I believe Al Gore would win the general election against either of those guys unless they took solemn and highly public vows to install only pro-life judges and justices.  Remember that Gore is a southerner, and a small town southerner will take a liberal Democrat from the south over a moderate Republican not from the south (see G.H.W. Bush and Bob Dole).  And most southerners are from small towns.  

IF the Democrats really get smart and nominate Mark Warner, we're sunk without a guy like Romney, and even then it would be tight. It would take Allen in the 2nd spot to pull that ticket together (I wish it could be Newt, but alas, I fear he'll always be the Grinch).  The good news is the Democrats are probably too liberal and brain dead to actually nominate Warner (let's hope and pray).

That being the case I believe once Romney becomes known, if he's as good as I saw on Charlie Rose, he'll make a hit in the south.  He is articulate, attractive and persuasive.  He can move miles to the right from where he had to campaign in Massachusetts.  Mormonism will not be an issue with evangelicals as long as he downplays his denomination (which is considered a cult in evangelical circles).  Again, the cult of liberalism is by far the greater Satan.

Romney just may be the guy.  Thanks for the education!

Strategic Vision Poll(June 16-18):

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/21/154030.shtml

Asked whom they would support for the Republican nomination for president in 2008, 39 percent chose Arizona Sen. John McCain, 22 percent selected former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and 15 percent chose Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Other potential candidates received less than 4 percent of the vote.

The source of this quote was from http://www.strategicvision.biz/political/michigan_poll_062106.htm

For the 2008 Republican Presidential Nomination whom would you support? (Republicans Only)

John McCain 39%

Rudy Giuliani 22%

Mitt Romney 15%

Newt Gingrich 3%

George Allen 3%

Bill Frist 3%

George Pataki 1%

Rick Santorum 1%

Chuck Hagel 1%

Undecided 12%

Look for these numbers to go up as the younger crowd gets to know Romney (George Romney was governor back in the 60s)

For an interesting analysis of the MI GOP '08 battle check out

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/368gtpeb. asp

Can't speak for GG, but I guess I'm against them all.  As we get closer, maybe one of them will seem less stinky, but right now I feel like I'm paying the price for mocking the seven dwarfs the Ds put up in 2004.

There were no good choices then for the Ds, and now I don't like my choices now.  Sigh.

he can't even get the name of Romney's church right.  The correct name of the church is "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".

"The LDS church" is somewhat more acceptable, although it is inaccurate.

But calling it "the Church of Latter-Day Saints" is like calling Assemblies of God "the Church of Assemblies" or calling the Roman Catholic church "the Roman church".  It may have been unintentional, but it reveals a common prejudice against the church as being a non-Christian denomination.

It is not "the Church of Latter-Day Saints".  It is "the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints".  We even refer to it as "the Church of Jesus Christ" (although that does tend to create confusion until the word "Mormons" is added).

"LDS Church" is more acceptable than "the Church of Latter-Day Saints (I don't know why it is more acceptable, but it is), although it is slightly inaccurate.

But I have to confess: I am far more willing to compromise than you are.

I'd love to see Newt Gingrich as president.  Tom Coburn would be my ideal president.

But when I look at the playing field, I just don't see either one of these guys getting through the MSM/internet minefield.

Swing voters want a candidate who is not too liberal or too conservative.

The trick is winning the swingers without selling out your base so much that they stay home.

And I think that only McCain and/or Romney can do that.  

Bill Owens?

One word. TABOR.

I'll admit I dont know much about Lindsay, but I would stop short of calling him a RINO.  He does manage to pick certain issues to side with the Dems on, but calling lumping him in with Lincoln Chafee and Arlen Specter is a bit much.  

Remember how great and important he was during the Alito nomination.  I would argue he used his credentials as a consensus builder to remind Americans we were discussing the nomination of a supremely qualified and honorable man.  Without his candor, I'm not sure things would have gone so smoothly.  I think his unfledgling support shifted Alito from a potentially divisive campaign issue into a boost for Republicans.

In my opinion, Huckabee (and the AR leg.) has been more responsible than most states with the tobacco money, using it for the purpose intended, in a public and accountable way. While other states were using the one-time tobacco money to plug holes in the state budget, Arkansas has continued to use the money for its intended purpose.

Huckabee may not pass muster with the Club for Growth, but the fact remains that he has been among the more fiscally responsible governors around, leaving the state with a current budget surplus. This, despite increasing spending on education.

There are reasons to criticize Huckabee to be sure (from both the left and the right) but his fiscal policy is not one of them.

...I can assure you I meant no offense regarding the correct name of the Mormon Church. I went to Wiki specifically to make sure I got the name right (serves me right for trusting them). Anyone can edit Wiki-you should head on over there and change it if is indeed incorrect.

I have nothing but respect for your religion and would gladly pull the lever for Romney if he won the GOP nomination.

The political model that Karl Rove has set with Bush is a social conservative, foreign policy hawk and tax cutter who doesn't mind throwing money around.  Bush on an ideal day appeals to the Religious Right and the neoconservatives, and gets by with fiscal conservatives while satisying people at-large (like seniors) with spending programs.  He's also moderate, even liberal, on immigration, trying to appeal to Hispanics.  In Rove's mind, he forges a conservative governing majority.

This model sounds potentially an awful lot like Mike Huckabee.  He certainly has the social conservative stamp as a former Southern Baptist minister.  He certainly throws money around and is not conservative on immigration.  It won't be too hard for him in the primaries to define himself as a tax-cutter and foreign policy hawk.  Huckabee is also a southern Governor, similar to Bush and before him Clinton.

If Huckabee exploits the Rove model on all these things, I think he has a chance in the primaries, provided he raises the money.  In my mind, he's the darkhorse of this race.

During the Alito nomination...not a RINO; has a lifetime 86 from the ACU...(Spector/Chaffee below 50)

Er, Myers and Saad?

As many have said, no one is 100% with each faction of the party.  However, I think one person you haven't listed comes closest -- Tim Pawlenty.  He's a fiscal and social conservative and (presumably) a hawk, without being perceived as far-right (after all he's governor of a purple state).  I see him as essentially a compromise candidate like Romney, but someone who's not a mormon, comes from a blue state that he could swing red, and can't be labeled a flip-flopper by his opposition.  For these reasons I think he's strategically the best choice for the GOP (provided he wins reelection in 06).

I assumed as much, based on previous posts of yours.  The name is long, so it's not surprising to find abreviations.  

Unfortunately, people who try to spread the belief that mormons aren't christians intentionally leave out the "Jesus Christ" from the church name.  

Since mormons get more than their fair share of this, it can sometimes cause them to assume the latter reason instead of the former.  

Sure, post the link.  Or perhaps the relevant quote (not taken out of context).

...we can get a Sanford/DeMint/Thomas Ravenel/(insert best possible presidential nominee here) coalition together to defeat both Graham and McCain in the South Carolina primaries in 2008. :-)

So how the heck is he going to run for president?

If Mike Pence ran for President, he would solve all of our problems. No more agonizing over who we should nominate. He thinks like Newt - except without the baggage.

Specifically, President Bush has been hardnosed in his dedication to cutting taxes.  Huckabee has raised them.  I think the Bush model falls pretty closely to a Allen type (sans confederate flag history) although Brownback isn't too far off either except the Senator is more vocal on pro-life issues.  On solely a policy front, Sen. McCain is probably the closest to the President except for CFR and a difference on whether cuttting spending should happen along with tax cuts (McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts because spending wasn't being cut at the same time).

is a big McCain fan.  They are two of the biggest anti-pork Republicans in the country and it would very much surprise me if Sanford doesn't endorse McCain.  In fact, I think Sanford should make a McCain shortlist for VPs who agree with him most of the time but have credentials with conservatives and Southerners.

He's been on my shortlist for over a year now.  But I really doubt he runs unless McCain drops out way early.

That's one reason he was on everyone's shortlist of dark horses.  But then he turned on it afterwards.

As is Buchanan.  As is Falwell.

Let's at least keep the list to people who don't advocate nuking Mecca.

"Neither McCain nor Giuliani will get many southern evangelicals out to vote unless Hillary is running, which I believe is not likely.  Kerry against either of those guys would be close (but our side would likely win).  I believe Al Gore would win the general election against either of those guys unless they took solemn and highly public vows to install only pro-life judges and justices."

You do realize that one of those Republicans has a 20 year record of voting pro-life, against the Harkin Amendment, for Judges like Bork, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.  And the other has been one of the leaders of the pro-choice Republicans.  There may be legitimate worries about McCain, but he has a long track record on abortion with only one quote that could be construed as having any sympathy with pro-choicers.  He once said he thought the country wasn't ready to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Compare to Rudy and there is a huge difference on this issue if it is what matters to you as a voter.

So he is for states making decisions on abortion but when it comes to same sex marriage he is for the federal gov't intervening???  Please someone explain this to me.

...and unfortunately, he's being called a flip-flopper right now by members of his own party due to his caving in to the state Dems over the cigarette "health fee", which people believe violated his no tax pledge.

He's had a stellar record otherwise.  

Romney defines the difference between being against gay marriage nationally (FMA) and against Roe vs. Wade nationally (federalist position) here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4362623183954478320&q=romney

Take it straight from the horse's mouth.

In the above video, Romney explains it this way: (paraphrasing):

The act of abortion is a singular event with no continuing legal afterthought. The status of marriage is a singular event with continuing legal afterthought. An example: If a mother-to-be in N. Dakota wants to have an abortion, post Roe, and it is illegal in her state, and she travels to another state to have the procedure performed, she will not, in all likelihood, try to have that procedure recognized in N. Dakota. However, a gay couple from Colorado could get 'married' in a state where such a status was legal, then try to get Colorado to recognize the union.

In short: Abortion laws can be specific to each state, while gays and lesbians could sue to get one state's marriage laws imposed upon another. Thus the need for the uniformity of an amendment.

Watch the video. Romney says it a whole lot better than me.

but I was referring to the perception of typical hard-working, Jesus loving, non-college educated, salt of the earth, sweet, patriotic and trustworthy small-town southerners who have the perception that McCain is for abortion.  They are not Red-State bloggers (or even readers; heck, they've got a dial-up connection best case) and they don't know who Rush Limbaugh is (a plus for McCain); the small town AM markets don't carry his show, at least in the southeast.  I've employed hundreds of these people over the years; I know and love them well.  Their perceptions are often shaped at church and by way of osmosis via what local candidates say about national candidates.

It is hard to overstate how little the average middle-class small town southerner (median household income $35-40K tops) knows about national candidates that are not southerners.  Certainly there are political junkies at all levels of the socio-economic  spectrum.  But most are busy living life; that includes voting, but it's not an obsession.  The perception is that a southern candidate is "one of us" so they will take the time to learn about them, but if the candidate is not from the south, they might as well be from Mars.  They are not trusted and assumed to be godless until they come to the area and win them over, or win over their local politicians.

Now I agree McCain has a wonderful military record.  But he's not from the south.  He trash-talked Bush while he was in Greenville talking to those good kids at Bob Jones.  So he has, Sherman-like, burned a bridge that is hard to forget.  Cozying up with the Democrats has not helped him either.  It's difficult to overcome a bad first impression (Bob Jones).  The perception is "...that guy must be for abortion since he attacked the President and good Pastor Bob!!!

Personally I'll take McCain over any Democrat; same for Rudy, even with his pro-choice problem.  But my friends (I live in FL but am an NC native and have business there and in all the SE states for many years) in the small town south have to be educated.  If McCain wants to beat Gore or Warner, he's going to have to go speak at some small town churches, go eat some real barbecue in the small town joints (I recommend Lexington, NC and Spartanburg, SC) and let people know he values life.  Understand that abortion is legalized murder with those people (me too).  It is a turnout issue; if you've got one that is pro-abortion (Gore) and southern and one who is mushy on the issue and from the west, the pro-life vote may not show up.

The point:  McCain has got to overcome his negative perception which includes abortion issues to win over evangelical southerners.  It's going to require some groveling, and that is not John's long suit.

that could convince me someone could be elected directly from the House of Representatives to the Presidency. Yes for Senators, Governors, Vice Presidents.....and perhaps a Secretary of State.

I trust you don't think I favor a Tancredo candidacy. But he has threatened to run. And, I don't think his chances could be entirely written off. Although I doubt his particulary nutty brand of  xenophopia could win a majority of even paleoconish, GOP primary voters (much less a majority of the American electorate as a whole), I'd never say never. In a post-911 world, fear's a big seller.

Could be. He's quite a character, though, and strikes me as having enough of an air of authenticity and maverick-ness about him for a lot of Texas voters to forgive his more liberal leanings. I'm not a Texan, though, so perhaps I'm way off base. I had gotten the impression Perry had a bit of a fight on his hands --but I can't say I've followed this particular race enough to speak with even a modicum of authority.

Was from the state chairman, Saul Anuzis, not the American Research Group.

I don't think he mentioned Newt

If a house rep. managed to win the primary, as a voter I'd sit up an take notice: "Who the heck is this whiz kid?" I'd say.

Most voters don't pay attention until after the conventions anyway.

...if it's embarrassing to the candidate you're supporting.

In each case, I've cited documentable evidence of the various candidates own words and/or votes.

Opinions are interesting.  Facts count.

...and I've simply expressed my opinion that many values voters will not support Romney based on his consistent support of Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, and elements of homosexual activists' political agenda over the last decade.

Spoke to the prominent leader of a national pro-family organization last week in D.C., who agreed Romney won't win the support of values voters.  This national leader said he'd sat in meetings in Boston last year in which Romney had to be pressured to take a stand at all on the marriage issue.  (Romney's managed to take three different stands on that issue, actually.)

Obviously, he will win the support of some such as you, Bonham, who (1) are unaware of his long pro-Roe, pro-abortion on demand record, or (2) believe, as you apparently do, that his sudden conversion on the issue -- conveniently timed to coincide with a presidential candidacy -- is sincere.

But his own political consultant Michael Murphy -- who may well be the murphy who posting on this page -- told National Review that Romney "has been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly" governor.

Given that his own guy testifies that Romney's  willing to "fake" his convictions, how do we know when he's faking and when he's not?

Apparently, some cultural tutoring is required for those such as neodanite who -- presmably out of simple ignorance -- accuse others of religious bigotry.

In fact, neodan, the full and correct name of Romney's church is the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." (The "d" in "Day" is not capitalized, as you mistakenly wrote in accusing me of making an incorrect reference.)

Further, "the LDS church" is precisely the shorthand used by its own members to refer to their church.

And not to swing a sledgehammer too hard down on your head, though you deserve it for making false accusations of religious bigotry, the URL of the official web site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is...

www.lds.org

Neo, unless you yourself are a member of the correctly-referenced LDS Church, I've probably managed or consulted more LDS candidates for public office then you've ever even met.

Don't accuse others of religious bigotry when you obviously ain't got a clue what you're talking about.

As for Romney, it's his record of support of Roe and abortion on demand and his personal disapproval of the Boy Scouts' position that homosexual behavior is incompatible with the Scouts moral standards, that's at odds with the moral values of the LDS Church.

Neodan, now I feel bad about slamming you so hard on the "LDS Church" thing, since Tom Coburn would also rise immediately to the top of my list if he could be persuaded to run.

People used to say that it was impossible for a person to get elected Governor or US Senator without prior political experience.   Now it happens all the time.

I suspect that the reason people used to work up 'through the ranks' as it were, was that political parties worked more like machines, and you had to build up the personal acquaintanceships with the right people to get the nomination, and that took time.

Now though with wide open primary processes, anyone can run and win by appealing to the voters directly.

Be still my heart.

But you're right, of course.  That's exactly how McCain is selling his vote this month against MPA.

I thought he might flip and vote for MPA this month, which would have removed a substantial obstacle he'll have in winning social conservatives.  Instead, he was the only GOP outside the lefty NE to vote against the amendment.

Saw him in suburban Detroit last night.  His stand on immigration didn't go over real big either.

Murphy: "First of all, Romney never supported homosexual scoutmasters.  You repeating this mantra over and over will not make it true."

I have the benefit of repeating the truth, and your denying the truth will not render it any less true.

In context, Romney was asked about the Scouts' all-inclusive ban on homosexuals: "gay" Scoutmasters, lesbian Den Mothers, bisexual  Quartermasters, "light in the wing" Eagles, or "bear" Cubs.

And he said in response: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

This is diametrically opposed to the BSA's official policy, which is strongly supported by Romney's church.  

Your claim that Romney's reference to "all people" didn't include adults wanting to serve as Scoutmasters is clearly disingenuous and further, you provide absolutely no substantiation of the disingenous claim.

That he supports letting the Scouts decide the issue is also irrelevant to his personal view that the Scouts are wrong to prohibit homosexual adults or teens.  My point all along has simply been that this will signal social conservatives that he does not share their worldview.

Murphy: "Secondly, he is solidly against Roe vs. Wade."

Earth to Murphy, or more appropriately, Romney to Murphy:

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. 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."

Please explain for all of us again, Murph, by what interpretation of plain English -- other than George Orwell's -- this definitive statement by Romney can be interpreted as "solidly against Roe v. Wade."

It occurred to me after my initial post that even if McCain did flop in the summer of 2008, when the next marriage amendment vote is likely, the nomination fight would pretty much be over by that time.

So he's pretty much locked in to his two votes (2004 and 2006) against the federal Marriage Protection Amendment.

Romney's balanced budgets (probably mandated by Massachusetts law) and specious healthcare plan will not persuade social conservatives to support him once they learn of his decade-long support of Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, homosexual Scoutmasters, taxpayer-financed homosexual benefits, appointment of homosexual activists to the court, etc., etc.

You've authored 75 posts on Redstate.  Every single one of them is a Romney Bash.  Furthermore, most of these posts have been a regurgitation of the exact same tired talking points, which have at this point been refuted to death, such as your gay scoutmaster meme, and other gross and intentional misrepresentations.

Do you have any other interests in life?  Hobbies, perhaps?  A family?  What are your thoughts on other issues of the day?  Surely there are other races, other aspects of the conservative/Republican agenda you have opinions on?  Because at this point I'm pretty much assuming you're actually a shell script that generates pre-written rants when the word "Romney" is detected.

You've authored 75 posts on Redstate.  Every single one of them is a Romney Bash.

If I remember correctly, he had another username before. Different letters in front of it but the same last part.

He just had the account renamed.  He's not trying to fool anybody or anything like that.

Please, Bama, cite your sources for the alleged "gross and intentional misrepresemtations."

In context, Romney was asked about the Scouts' all-inclusive ban on homosexuals: "gay" Scoutmasters, lesbian Den Mothers, bisexual  Quartermasters, "light in the wing" Eagles, or "bear" Cubs.

And he said in response: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

This is diametrically opposed to the BSA's official policy, which is strongly supported by Romney's own church.  

Any claim that Romney's reference to "all people" didn't include adults wanting to serve as Scoutmasters is disingenuous and without substantiation.

That he supports letting the Scouts decide the issue is also irrelevant to his personal view that the Scouts are wrong to prohibit homosexual adults or teens...a view that will signal social conservatives that he does not share their worldview.

Who has the best chance of winning Texas independents?  Because whoever wins Texas in 08 will win the elecion and Texas is MOSTLY independents.

I somehow got the impression it was a different account.  

Roll Tide: "Do you have any other interests in life?  Hobbies, perhaps? A family?  What are your thoughts on other issues of the day?  Surely there are other races, other aspects of the conservative/Republican agenda you have opinions on?  Because at this point I'm pretty much assuming you're actually a shell script that generates pre-written rants when the word 'Romney' is detected."

Yes to all the above, Tide, though (1) I haven't got a clue what a "shell script" is, (2) I don't have the time to write about my views on the price of tea in China, and (3) whatever you're assuming is of little consequence to the substance of the issues being discussed.

But unless your screen name refers to laundry detergent, it may interest you to know that my Dad was born in Birmingham and was always a Roll Tide, Red Elephant, Big Bear fan himself, as am I.  And Granddaddy is buried in that cemetery that overlooks the B-ham airport. And great-great-Granddaddy served in the 18th Alabama Infantry, including at Shiloh.  So I can't be all bad.

Double G:

Not only has this already been addressed, it's already been addressed in this thread.

I love how you somehow feel you're the barometer of how social conservatives react.  Romney supports the right of the Boy Scouts to make their own decisions in regards to this issue.  Open and shut.  You misrepresent the situation by making it seem as if Romney has campaigned to have the boy scouths allow homosexuals.

Romney is one of the most outspoken critics of both gay marriage and civil unions, has vocally supported the defense of marriage act on a national stage, etc.  Yet to you he's somehow pro-gay, and will feel a backlash from conservatives over this?  Absolutely irrelevant.

So what you're saying is Republican Agenda - Mitt Romney = Price of Tea in China.

What attracts Americans to the Republican party vs. the Democrats is that we have a positive agenda, with positive ideas for change.  You, on the other hand, have only negative things to say, and have devoted your blog-time to tearing down a single man.  How about you talk about a candidate you DO like?  Or maybe some Democrats you dislike?  I mean come on, there has to be a few liberals you dislike at least -as- much as Mitt Romney, right?  

I'd just like to see you devote some of your energy to writing about something positive.  It's hard to say you don't have time when you clearly have plenty of time when you sense there's a single redstate reader not familiar with your Romney Boyscoutgate™ scandal.  Aren't there races in Michigan you can write about?

Has been very clear in his personal beliefs. He has also expressed no particular need to enforce his beliefs on other people.  That is as it should be.  Just because a person has a particular set of beliefs doesn't mean they want to enforce those beliefs on others nor does it mean that people who don't share those beliefs somehow need to be afraid of him.

I believe that this digging down into issues that ultimately have no bearing is of little consequence.  It is all angles on the head of a pin.  I really don't give a pinch of owl scat what Romney or anyone else thinks about the Boy Scouts or homosexuality.  What I care mostly about is that they don't waffle on whatever position they hold.  A president can't make a law.  

Roll tide... you can't blame him.  He is defined by hate.  He is to Romney as Liberals are to Bush. I think Romney must have run over GG's dog.  Let it out GG, crying is healing...

This GgMichigan, AFAmichian, Gary Glann, etc. is where you show you colors as over reactionary and someone who cannot hold a legitimate debate. You genereally try to deep six someone rather than listen to what they have to say. In the end you deep six yourself. You remind me alot of James Carville or Paul Begala.

Murphy said nothing of Religious bigotry in this post. He stated that using "Church of Latter-day Saints" reveals a common prejudice weather held by the actual poster or not. It does. As one who has spent alot of time studying church history and the methods of those who spend their time attacking the church, his comment makes perfect sense.

As far as the term "LDS" is concerned, I took from his post that he is reffering more about the logic behind it, not the acceptability of it by leaders of the LDS church, which again he makes a good point- although I have no problem with its use. I think his comment here was meant to be pretty  academic. But trying to understand someone elses point has not been your forte.

As far as Abortion and the LDS church- the LDS church only takes an official stance as far as the morality on it, not the legalities. You would be hard pressed to say that Romney wasn't in line with the LDS church's stance on abortion since as far as the law is concerned, they have made no offical stance. As far as the LDS values, as long as someone would see abortion as a sin, they would be in line with LDS values on the issue.

BTW there are many prominent LDS leaders, past and present who are democrats (including past presidents of the church) who obviously have found no problem being lined up with a party that supports legalized abortion. I am personally aginst legalized abortion, and feel Romney will appoint judges who will interpret the constituion correctly.

As far as Boy Scouts and the LDS church I have read everything you have wrote and everything I can find on Google, and Romney lines up with his church on this position too. Everything he has said the LDS church has actually stated. Romney has never stated, "I want Gay Scoutmasters."

As for Gay Marriage, Romney lines up with the LDS Church concerning that too. He has followed the lines of LDS church, most recently concerning the Marriage Ammendment.

Lastly, I am positive that leaders in the LDS church are looking forward to Romney's run and will undoubtedly vote for him.

I know Rudy, having served as an unsalaried commissioner in his administration...and as one of his earliest supporters for Mayor.

He is pro choice and he won't change..Rudy is what he is..take him or leave him...

In the end , if he runs....conservatives will accept him because of his extraordinary leadership abilities and his stance on the gwot.

He is not the poll driven chamellion so common in politics today....

That sounds like he has performed some political jujitsu to make that work.  The fact is we have gay marriage in his homestate of Massachusetts and yet I have yet to read about an epidemic of gay couples moving to South Carolina or other conservative states and sueing the state to recognize their rights.  

...and please pass the tissue.

Yeah, right!

Actually, my slogan is:

"Praise the Lord, and pass the ammunition!"

(My Dad was at Pearl Harbor, where that quote came from.)

I never cease to be amused when those unhappy about having documentable facts cited to them respond with personal attacks, especially the "hate" (yawn) rhetoric of the Left.

Tide: "I'd just like to see you devote some of your energy to writing about something positive."

Thanks for letting me know how you'd like me to spend my time.  I've been anxously waiting for your instruction.

Roll Tide!

Crosspatch: "I really don't give a pinch of owl scat what Romney or anyone else thinks about the Boy Scouts or homosexuality."

Thanks for sharing, Cross.  Those who do care about those issues won't support Romney, once they find out about his record.

---

Cross: "What I care mostly about is that they don't waffle on whatever position they hold."

Hmmm...

Romney expressly supported Roe v. Wade and protecting a woman's "right to choose" abortion on demand, now says he's against Roe and is pro-life.

Opposed a state constitutional amendment that banned homosexual "marriage," civil unions, or domestic partnerships (even though his own wife and son signed the petition to put it on the ballot).

Then he supported a constitutional amendment that banned homosexual "marriage" but expressly established civil unions.

Now, running for prez, he supports a constitutional amendment that bans both homosexual "marriage" and civil unions.

And you want somebody who doesn't "waffle"?

Tide: "I love how you somehow feel you're the barometer of how social conservatives react."

I am in fact the barometer of how at least one social conservative will react (myself).  But given that I work with social conservatives and activists both in-state and nationally on a daily basis, I don't think I'm entirely ignorant of (1) issues they care about and (2) how they react to politicians who publicly argue against our values for a decade and then suddenly "see the light."  (In fact, I'm intimately familiar and well-versed on the above.)

Tide: "Romney supports the right of the Boy Scouts to make their own decisions in regards to this issue. ...You misrepresent the situation by making it seem as if Romney has campaigned to have the boy scouths allow homosexuals."

Roll, how is it possible to misrepresent anything when all I've consistently done is cite Romney's own publicly recorded statement?  I don't "make it seem" like anything.  I simply quote Mitt Romney stating his personal view that "all people" -- including adults of a homosexual "orientation" -- should be allowed to participate in Scouting.  Such view is diametrically opposed to Scout policy, a policy strongly supported by Romney's own church.  Which is why a BSA national rep took the very unusual step of publicly criticizing Romney's statements.

Romney's belief that it's OK for homosexual adults to take 12 year old boys camping will send a strong signal to social conservative activists that he doesn't share their concerns, core values or worldview.

That's my informed barometic opinion.

Hi bonham,

I was not responding to murphy but to neodanite, who wrote that my use of the term "LDS Church" "reveals a common prejudice against the church."

That's not only an allegation of religious bigotry -- in plainly-stated English -- that I'll simply not let stand, but based on neo's apparent ignorance...but now he's been appropriately tutored on the subject.

Bonham: "I am personally against legalized abortion."

Me too.  So you (like me) disagree with the pro-Roe, pro-legalized abortion stand Romney took up until deciding to run for prez.

Bonham: "As far as Boy Scouts and the LDS church, ...Romney lines up with his church on this position too. Everything (Romney) has said the LDS church has actually stated."

O.K., Bon, first off, it's noteworthy that you yourself make reference to "the LDS church."  Given that you're a member of the Church, neodanite is unlikely to accuse YOU of "common prejudice against the church," right?  (I rest my case on the "tutoring" debate.)

But now the whammy: please provide us a quote where the LDS Church said, as Romney did:

"I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

As to marriage, Romney opposed a Marriage Protection Amendment his own wife and son supported in 2001, then in 2004 he supported an amendment that banned homosexual "marriage" but constitutionally mandated homosexual "civil unions," and now running for prez, he supports a state amendment that bans future homosexual "marriages" and is silent on civil unions while endorsing a federal amendment that bans homosexual "marriage" and judicially mandated "civil unions." I'm not aware that the Church's position has undergone similarly calibrated "evolution" through all those variations.

Finally, no doubt many LDS voters will support Romney.  The ones I know have been initially excited about his candidacy, but all the more disgusted after learning about his record that a good Mormon would ever have taken the stands he has.

Note to neodanite: Is it OK to make reference to "LDS voters" or to refer to Romney as a "Mormon"?  If not, please advise on the correct terminology.

GG,

Read this carefully and do me the favor of not snipping one part of this statement out of context (can you program that into your anti-Romney shell script?):

Romney has never been in favor of civil unions or gay marriage.  If he is forced to choose between the two, he'd rather have civil unions.  But he's still against both.  He briefly supported that amendment because he thought it was the only way to stop gay marriage.

So stop trying to make it sound like Romney was EVER for civil unions.

Hey GG (Gary Glenn),

If you're such an informed barometer, explain this:

"Glenn in Idaho and since has been an activist on various causes usually called "conservative." (You see such descriptions as "extreme" or "ultra" conservative to describe him...eventually running himself for office, winning a seat on the Ada County Commission but becoming such an extremely contentious figure there that he actually lost the job in 1996 to a Democrat...

And here's the source for you.

You've been a contentious extremist with no ears on your head for the last decade...I would think you'd have learned a lesson from getting beat by a democrat.

Try all the other Romney facts that you find so convenient to ignore...they might just disrupt your crusade.

Gary,

You seem to have missed the point on that Michael Murphy quote of yours which you're fond of.  

1. It indicates that Romney is pro-life.
   
   
2. The fact that Murphy appologized for it indicates that the term "faking it" was not at all what Romney's position was.  He ran for MA as a pro-life governor who would not change abortion laws.

Oh, and your "prominent leader" who thinks that Romney isn't willing to take a stand on marriage?  He might try picking up a newspaper from any time since 2002.  To single ROMNEY of all people out as weak on marriage is pretty delusional.

1.    I do not hate you

2.    The "personal attack" was intended to enlighten others on how you think.  The simile was intended to show how you like liberals, define yourself not by what you advocate but what you dislike.  If you cared about abortion why not discuss it with Leon (with out mentioning Romney)?  If you care about the Boy Scouts and homosexuals there was an interesting post about homosexuals earlier.  Admit it.  You define yourself as not Romney.  I think people should know that.

3.    The "facts" you keep citing forces others to repeat their arguments against you.  It seems that you think that if you repeat yourself enough times, your "truth" or interpretation of the 2 quotes you repeatedly use will become true.  This is what I call propaganda.

Saw that a week ago, but not sure what your point is.

If my losing a race ten years ago gives you some comfort about your likelihood of covering up Mitt Romney's record with social conservatives, well, you gotta take it where you can get it.

If you think it's effective to shoot the messenger, fire away.  My scar tissue has armor plating.

Romney supported a constitutional amendment that would have constitutionally mandated creation of homosexual "civil unions."

Once again, Romney's personal views are interesting, such as your insistence that he's "personally" pro-life and opposes civil unions.

His public policy positions in favor of abortion on demand and constitutionally-mandated civil unions are what matter in terms of governance...and the way he'll be judged by social conservatives, including those I know in his own state.

No snipping required.

Corben: "He is defined by hate."

Corben: "Who here is the hateful one?"

Who accused you of "hating" me, Corben?  You just deployed the totally boring leftist "hate" rhetoric to demonize someone with whom you disagree.

There's nothing "hateful" about citing Mitt Romney's record.

And I repeatedly quote Romney's own words because they speak for themselves.

No interpretation is necessary:

"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."

To have her prenatal child killed, that is.

Now explain to me, Corben, what if anything about Romney's clear use of the English language requires interpretation.

What it requires -- for those who want to convince social conservatives that Romney's one of us -- is obfuscation, spin, and disavowal.

I understand that my continuing to force you and others to confront the plain simple English of Romney's record is frustrating.

But there's nothing "hateful" about it.

Unless you define "hateful" to mean (1) someone who disagrees with you and (2) can't be intimidated, name-called, or bullied to stop disagreeing with you.

Having just come in to this thread, I feel compelled to pull a time-out, here. I can entirely sympathize with the irritation at posters like GGMichigan and AFAMichigan, because it seems as though they're one-trick ponies. However, it's important to understand that we've gotten a lot (and I mean a lot) of diaries here that rather obviously come from Romney's PR people/campaigners. Romney is trying very hard to run from his record of a scant few years ago, and he is employing a determined group of people to help him get that message out. It should come as no surprise that there are an equally determined group of people who will not let this pass.

If you're interested in my position on this issue, I've stated it here and here. In other words, I'm not buying what Romney is selling. If you want to, that's of course your prerogative.

But I would point out that you did say that "hate" drove GGMichigan's speech in the beginning of this thread, which is something we frown upon, because it tends to encourage the degeneration of threads just like this one. Disagree amongst yourselves all you want, let's just keep it civil and on a non-personal level as much as possible.

GG,

This is coming down heavy-handed and contentious even for you.  The difference of a "D" vs. a "d" is not nearly as significant as the leaving out of Jesus Christ from the name...though it's clear that Bij didn't mean anything by it in the way "anti-mormons" do.  And I think this whole thing is blown WAY out of proportion anyway.

What Neodanite actually said was "The LDS Church is somewhat more acceptable, but still inaccurate".  He's right.  Here's the official style guide of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

"When writing about the Church, please follow these guidelines:

In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Please avoid the use of "Mormon Church," "LDS Church" or "the Church of the Latter-day Saints."

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged."

Here's a source for you.  Now don't go all monkey over someone because you have better capitalization skills than the rest of us.

Okay, I'm going to let this thread die, as I can save bandwidth by simply beating my head against a cinderblock and get the same results.

Don't vote for Mitt Romney in a primary or general election.  That's your choice.

But please do not endlessly (and I do mean endlessly) cut-and-paste the same dialogue over and over and over.  You provide food for thought, you prompted me to double-check my information on the man (and was, of course, very satisfied with what I found), but I think that perhaps one of your diatribes per Romney diary will suffice going forward.  Can we agree to this?  I'm pretty sure after nearly 100 posts saying the exact same thing reasonable people can agree the Redstate community understands where you stand on this.

Thanks!

Oh yeah, another thing.  Why do you always talk about Romney as having "consistent" support for abortion and homosexual agendas?  Is it because your agenda is to smear him on these issues?

"Consistent" would imply that he is consistently for it.  In fact, you always point to a few quotes and ignore ALL the other quotes and ACTIONS contrary to your conclusion.

Mike,

Thanks for the inside scoop.  From your experience, is Rudy a pro-choice politician who would nominate conservative judges?  In other words, is he pro-choice but not on a mission like Arlen Specter?

I shouldn't have let my discussion get to a personal level.  I apologize GG for telling you what your motivations were.  I of course am not clairvoyant so I do not know what your motivation is for speaking profusely about only one subject.  

I have listen to your posts though and gave them a fair shake the first time I read them.  I am curious though if I am correct or if my assessment of your motivations were wrong.  Leon is correct in that the discussion has degenerated and I respectfully allow you the last word.

GG: "His stand on immigration didn't go over real big either"

I'll bet it didn't.  It's a compromise position, bound to make him popular in the general and bound to help sink him before he gets there.

What are your thoughts on Romney on immigration?  Let's branch out your posts beyond the usual.

I was glad to read your post in the GA gov thread, It's good to know there are other Republicans you hate besides Romney.  Maybe soon we'll hear about Democrats you dislike or Republicans you do like.

Roll,

I honestly don't understand why it's so frustrating to you that all your protests notwithstanding, I haven't changed my views about the simple documentable facts of Romney's record.

I'm not frustrated in the least by the fact that you haven't capitulated to my line of reasoning, and I sincerely don't understand why my refusal to be swayed by your views so bothers you.

I have little interest in persuading you or anyone else.

I only hope to broaden the number of those who are simply informed...who upon learning of Romney's record, will need no persuasion, i.e., social conservatives who instinctively, without prompting, will not trust or support a 59 year old adult who spent a decade insistently defending Roe v. Wade and abortion on demand, then suddenly became "pro-life" when he decided to run for president.

Either that, or as Romney's consultant Murphy said, he's a guy who "fakes" his convictions.  No go either way.

So the more you and murph argue with me, the better.  And all your collectively lightweight attempts to attack the messenger or make me the issue are irrelevant.

The truth will out between now and 2008.  That's what's important.

It's also important re: McCain and others, but everybody's got the goods on McCain and Rudy and Newt.

GG: "Please explain for all of us again, Murph, by what interpretation of plain English..."

I've already done this with respect to Romney keeping his campaign promises here, and with respect to why you can't apply Romney's 2002 governor race to his 2008 presidential race here.

Those two fond posts were the closest you ever let yourself get painted into a corner (and by that I mean using your reasoning skills)...then you pulled the old disappearing trick and BAM, you're singing the same old song again.

GG: "Romney's balanced budgets (probably mandated by Massachusetts law)..."

You're trying to discredit Romney's capability as THE BEST financial turnaround king that the GOP has to offer in 2008.  I realize this is going to be stepping out of familiar territory for you, but can you go find a source for this?  

...that regardless of what Romney may personally really believe, the guy closest to him and his political strategy said he was willing to "fake" his convictions for the sake of political calculation.

The political consultant apologized for obvious reasons: because his comment was embarrassing to the candidate.

This is a lose-lose for you, Murph.

(1) Romney WASN'T faking it when he said he sustained and supported Roe v. Wade and the right of a woman to choose to have her baby aborted.

(2) Romney WAS faking it when he said he sustained and supported Roe v. Wade and the right of a woman to choose to have her baby aborted.

Which do you choose?

Or if you per chance are the same Murphy who made the telling quote, which would you tell us is the truth?

Gary, glad you asked.

My point in that was that you are a contentious ultra-conservative.  You're not a good barometer of social conservatives.  There are plenty of social conservatives right here on this website, and YOU are the farthest thing from representative of them.

My other point was that a decade ago you did not know how to keep elected office.  In the years since, you've no doubt learned something, but it's not anything pragmatic.  All you ever do is cut candidates down for one thing or another without offering anything productive.  

Will your perfect 100% flawless EVER surface?  It's impossible!  If you're comfortable sharing, who did you vote for in the GOP primaries in 1980 and 1984?

Hey GG (Gary Glenn),

If you're such an informed barometer, explain this:

"Glenn in Idaho and since has been an activist on various causes usually called "conservative." (You see such descriptions as "extreme" or "ultra" conservative to describe him...eventually running himself for office, winning a seat on the Ada County Commission but becoming such an extremely contentious figure there that he actually lost the job in 1996 to a Democrat...

And here's the source for you.

You've been a contentious extremist with no ears on your head for the last decade...I would think you'd have learned a lesson from getting beat by a democrat.

Oh, don't jump all over me for the repeated text in that last post, it was a typo...

Murphy: "Oh, and your 'prominent leader' who thinks that Romney isn't willing to take a stand on marriage?  He might try picking up a newspaper from any time since 2002.  To single ROMNEY of all people out as weak on marriage is pretty delusional."

Now settle down, Murph.  Maybe I wasn't clear.

The prominent leader told me he was unimpressed by Romney's current rhetoric because he had personally sat in on meetings in Boston where Romney had to be pushed to take a strong stand against so-called homosexual "marriage" after the Supreme Judicial Court decision in 2003.

In 2001, Romney had opposed a state marriage amendment that might have preempted the whole issue had the governor supported it and it made its way through the political thicket, or might not.  This despite his own wife and son signing the petition to put it on the ballot.

Murph, to be sure I understand, you're asking me to cite a source for an assumption that I clearly qualified with the predicate "probably"?

If a balanced budget is not constitutionally required in Massachusetts, I'm more than happy to have you educate me to that effect.

I'm just generally unimpressed every time some politician brags about balancing his state budgets, when many if not most if not all states require a balanced budget by law.

If I'm wrong, wail away.

I have used both "consistent" and "insistent" to describe Romney's decade-long record of support for Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, homosexual Scoutmasters, appointing homosexual activists to the court, etc.

But you're right in noting that after that decade of consistent and insistent support for abortion on demand et al, Romney has in the last year or so reversed himself on some of these issues.

Again, this is a lose-lose for you, Murph.

(1) Romney has consistently, insistently endorsed Roe, abortion on demand, etc., or

(2) He will soon compete with John Kerry for the title of being Massachusett's biggest flip-flopper.

Pick your poison.

Of course, dependant only on the calendar, he's been both.

What's up with the melodrama, Tide?

Does my choice of posting topics and locations really have that much effect on your demeanor?

Admired and inspired by Ronald Reagan. Really like Tom Coburn and Mark Sanford and lots of others.

Don't like Hillary or her husband, or that other flip-flopper from Mass who ran in 04 or Kennedy or Reid or Pelosi or...ad infinitum.

There...feel better now?

I'll take that as a compliment, Murph, though I do not recall having felt that "painted into a corner" sensation any time recently, here on RedState or elsewhere.

And to what "old disappearing trick" do you refer?

Here I've just been getting used to the accusation that I post too often, now you suggest that because I was on the road a few days and didn't post, it was a trick?

How have I managed to stay out of that corner when confronted with such withering fire?!

Actually, you've either sincerely missed the whole point of my posts, or you're simply just as good at staying on message as I am.

My point has simply been that many social conservatives will not care one iota about all your explanations as to why Romney's insistent support for Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand et al (1) didn't really happen, or (2) don't really matter if they did.

All they'll need to know is that they did (happen), because they already know that it does (matter).

Hey, be sure to let me know in advance next time you think I'm getting close to a corner.

Murph: "Gary, glad you asked."

No problem...Michael, is it?

Murph: "My point was that you are a contentious ultra-conservative. You're not a good barometer of social conservatives."

You'd have to explain the difference, Murph, since social conservatives as a whole are routinely characterized as "contentious ultra-conservatives" by liberal reporters such as the one whose characterization you're citing about me.

My daily interaction with social conservative activists nationwide is probably a better "barometer" of how in touch I am with my counterparts in the movement, don't ya think?

Murph: "My other point was that a decade ago you did not know how to keep elected office."

An obviously understandable though erroneous conclusion, i.e, that "knowing how" was at issue, laughably so were you to suggest that to anyone of either party on the scene at the time.

All of which is irrelevant to the question of whether social conservatives, activists, and GOP primary voters will support Mitt Romney in 2008 after learning about his decade-long record of support for Roe v. Wade, abortion on demand, etc.

In my opinion, which I believe is fairly well-informed by daily interaction, many will not, but I could, of course, be wrong.    

And now, at risk of whatever carefully laid cornering maneuver you may have in store for me...at the tender idealistic age of 21, I donated to Congressman Phil Crane in the early run-up to the 1980 primaries, but by the time actual voting came around, I voted for Ronald Reagan. And again in 1984.

Took my daughter to D.C. for his funeral too. I often say, "I was raised on Reagan, so I'm hard to please."

So go ahead. Use the dearly-departed Gipper to reason me into a corner...if you can.

I sincerely appreciate and accept your mature, self-confident apology, even as I recover from the novel experience of having someone on Red State ride to my defense.

And in equal sincerity, I can assure you that no feelings of personal animosity -- toward any candidate or any poster -- motivate my comments.

Here's my motivation: to influence not only Romney's future behavior, but that of other presidential aspirants as well.

The object lesson is this: if you want the support of social conservative activists for some future campaign, no longer suffer the delusion that you can spend your entire political career undercutting values we care about and rhetorically legitimizing the opposition...then expect us to be manipulated into forgetting it all and rewarding you with our support based on some transparently last-minute claim of conversion.  Or in Romney's case, "evolution."

Instead, expect accountability for all those years you argued in favor of Roe v. Wade and a woman's "right to choose" to have her prenatal child's life terminated.

That principle applies not only to Romney but to all the rest as well.

And just because I've gotten into a Romney rut here on Red State doesn't mean I'm not holding others to a similar standard in different fora.

I'm sure Sen. McCain didn't like this one last week:

http://www.mlive.com/news/jacitpat/index.ssf?/base/news-1/115090592410110.x
ml&coll=3

...so enlighten me.

The only thing "all the other Romney facts" proves is that he's willing to try to play both sides of an issue.

Kerry proved that flip-flopping is not a pretty picture either.

Romney paraphrase: "I firmly supported Roe v. Wade before I firmly opposed it."

My specificity on the little "d" versus the capital "D" was tongue in cheek, meant to illustrate why neodanite shouldn't have presumed to lecture somebody else about correct terminology, especially in the context of accusing someone of "prejudice."

The Church's official style guide is interesting.  My knowledge is based on living among, being "adopted" by, having family members who are, and managing and consulting LDS candidates for office for two decades.

The Church hasn't come close to successfully training even its own members as to the "preferred style."

Church members routinely refer to "the Church," and of course will when appropriate point out the full title, but I have never, not once, ever heard a Mormon refer to his church as simply "The Church of Jesus Christ" for short.  It's always "the Church" or when speaking to non-members, "the LDS Church."

Have I been in Michigan too long?

I wasn't refering to your recent road trip to D.C. as your "disappearing act".  No, that was a propoganda-free breath of fresh air that you'll never hear me complain about.

Your "disappearing act" happens far more regularly...whenever someone puts his facts to you and one of your beloved Romney scripts is in danger.  

One such example is your common suggestion that Romney would appoint liberals to SCOTUS based on his track record of appointing "homosexual activists" to the bench in MA.  Just when docj had educated you about the process of nominating judges in MA, POOF, you're gone, only to reappear somewhere else shouting about homosexual activist judges.  Maybe you'd like to talk about how a governor is supposed to get Bork past the 100% liberal democrat GC?

I'm a little curious about your frequent statement "I was raised on Reagan, so I'm hard to please" or your other statement "Admired and inspired by Ronald Reagan."  And you also voted for Reagan twice, how about that.  You obviously knew about Reagan's pro-choice, pro-abortion on demand stance when he was governor of California.  Are you also pro-abortion on demand GG?  Or are you the biggest flip-flopper in Michigan since John Kerry campaigned there in 2004?

Early in his California governorship Reagan signed a permissive abortion bill that resulted in millions of abortions.  Later, when running for president at the tender age of 68, he flipped and ran on a pro-life agenda.

Now how can you say that you admire and are inspired by Ronald Reagan while bashing Romney for having a STRONGER pro-life agenda in MA than Reagan had in CA?  Keep in mind that Romney has VETOED ALL ATTEMPTS to liberalize abortion law, while Reagan actually signed the most liberal abortion law in the nation.

Furthermore, how can you say that social conservatives will not vote for Romney based on what will be 6 or 14 year old statements (not actions mind you)?  Social conservatives turned out for Reagan when he ran for POTUS on pro-life, didn't they?

I'll be very impressed with you if you actually answer the SUBSTANCE of this ENTIRE question instead of falling back on a few stale quotes and then disappearing again, only to continue the smear Romney campaign another day.

You can find lots of info on Romney's immigration stance here.

Enjoy.

"In 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that virtually decriminalized abortion. At the time, Mr. Reagan was troubled by the passionate lobbying against the bill by Cardinal Francis McIntyre. But on the advice of two of his most conservatives advisers, Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, Mr. Reagan signed anyway. He persuaded himself that the measure would have little impact. Instead, it prompted a surge in abortions."

I guess your going to have to remove Reagan from the list.  Romney never signed any bill making abortions easier to get as Governor

The "substance of the entire question," huh?

O.K., let's saddle up.

I'm strongly pro-life. Key leader in one state's adoption of partial-birth abortion ban. Currently actively supporting petition drive for a state constitutional amendment to define life as beginning at conception. President of one pro-life group, board member of two others. (That's enough...don't want to bore you.)  

And actually, at ages 22 and 26 when I voted for him, I was not aware of Reagan's California record (which had occurred when I was in grade school).

But few things come easier, or with more resolute pride, than defending the Man Who Made the World Safer for My Children against your disrespectful use of his legacy as a rhetorical tool to try to justify Romney's pandering, flip-flopping or "faking." (You choose.)

After President Reagan's death, the Weekly Standard's Fred Barnes explained:

"In 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that virtually decriminalized abortion. At the time, Mr. Reagan was troubled by the passionate lobbying against the bill by Cardinal Francis McIntyre. But on the advice of two of his most conservatives advisers, Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, Mr. Reagan signed anyway."

Or as the San Francisco Chronicle described:

"The California Legislature sent Reagan a measure in 1967 that legalized abortion in cases of rape and incest and when a doctor found that a pregnancy would endanger the life or health of the woman. Reagan agonized over the measure, fearing that doctors would exploit a mental heath loophole to approve many abortions. But in the end he signed it."

Back to Fred Barnes:

"Within a year after signing the abortion bill, Mr. Reagan told political writer Lou Cannon that he'd never have done so if he'd been more experienced in office. It was 'the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation,' Mr. Cannon writes in his new book, 'Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power.'"

And now me...

Reagan clearly did not favor abortion on demand, personally or as a matter of public policy. He reluctantly signed a bill that relaxed an outright ban to allow for the exceptions of rape, incest, and to save the life or health of the mother, and he was correctly troubled by the "health" exception. He almost immediately labeled signing that bill a mistake.

And by the time he ran for President in '76, it had been eight years since he said signing that bill was a mistake.

Romney, regardless of whatever his personal views may be, just as clearly did support abortion on demand as a matter of public policy, and clearly, unequivocally, and insistently said so throughout the 90's and 00's, right up until July 2005, less than a year ago, when he suddenly announced his views had "evolved."

I've never read any statement where Ronald Reagan insistently defended -- as Romney consistently did for a DECADE until last July -- a woman's alleged "right to choose" to terminate the life of her prenatal child.

Similarly, I've never read a statement in which Romney disavowed his unequivocal arguments in support of Roe v. Wade and a woman's "right to choose" or said they were a mistake.  (Perhaps you could an post some, Murph, to further reason me "into a corner.")

To my knowledge, Romney has said merely that his views -- conveniently and freshly timed for a presidential race -- have "evolved," while you, Murphy, have consistently argued here, all evidence to the contrary, that his views on the subject have NEVER changed.

But for all we know, you may also be the Murphy who told National Review that Romney's "been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly" governor. Regardless, the testimony of a close political confidant that Romney's willing to "fake" his core principles is certainly troubling.

If Romney wants to inspire the same kind of support Ronald Reagan did from social conservatives, including me, here's my suggestion, with no guarantees:

Reagan in 1968 said signing even a rape, incest, and life law into effect was a mistake he regretted. Thus, EIGHT YEARS after taking what can fairly be characterized as a pro-life public policy stand, and maintaining that view without further "evolving," Reagan ran for president as a pro-life candidate.

So let Mitt spend the next EIGHT YEARS proving by his words and actions that his newfound "pro-life" posture is for real. If he runs for president in 2016, and in the meantime his views have not "evolved" back to supporting Roe and a "woman's right to choose" while running for some intervening office, I'll be much more convinced that his "evolution" can be trusted as real and consider supporting him for president.

It'll take that long for social conservatives to forget these Romneyisms, and for Romney to convince us that we should:

• "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. 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."
• "The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
• "I respect and will protect a women's right to choose...the truth is no candidate in the Governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights."
• "Gubernatorial candidates Shannon O'Brien and Mitt Romney sparred (in 2002) over who was the strongest abortion rights supporter by touting endorsements from abortion rights groups and challenging each other's records on the issue."
  

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/10-02/10-03-02/a03sr021.htm

Or Romney's opposition to the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual Scoutmasters, or support for forcing taxpayers to subsidize homosexual relationships among state employees, or his appointing homosexual activists to the bench, ad nauseum.

There, Murphy, you impressed now?  Cause I surely ain't gonna disappear or stop telling the truth about Romney's record, and certainly not because you're willing to sully the memory of the man who stared the Soviet Union into oblivion and made this world safer for my children, including...Reagan Elizabeth.

...as I do each time on this particular element of Romney's record:

Did the GC compel Romney to appoint two homosexual activists to the court?

...at the top of my list, as explained here:

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/6/26/91132/1367/152#152

"And I repeatedly quote Romney's own words because they speak for themselves.

No interpretation is necessary:"-GG

...is worth every word of it.

When Romney's been pro-life longer than he's been pro-abortion on demand, check back with me.

That'll be in...2016.

That it was pure sophistry trying to get you to defend Reagan's obviously correct actions to get you to admit that sometimes you have to look below the surface.  Many Pro-lifers (not all) would sign the same bill as Reagan not realizing how liberally the "health of the mother" would be interpreted.

...that signing the 1967 bill was a big mistake.

Not many pro-lifers these days who don't understand the "health" exception, which in subsequent court decisions -- long after '67 -- has been interpreted to mean a blank check.

And a growing number who don't believe prenatal children should be killed for the sins of their fathers, i.e., rape and incest.

I know a young woman, mother, and pro-life activist who herself is the child of a serial rapist (who raped her mother). She asks, "Should I not have been born?"

http://rebeccakiessling.ambassadoragency.com/client_profile.cfm/cid/193?cat
egories_id=4

GG,

What a nice composition you wrote on the Great Liberator.  Every bit as factual as I was hoping for.  Corben hit it right on the head when he said "That it was pure sophistry trying to get you to defend Reagan's obviously correct actions to get you to admit that sometimes you have to look below the surface."

I'll freely admit how silly I felt portraying both you and Reagan as pro-abortion NARAL maniacs, but that's what headlines can do.  Maybe you'd like to "look below the surface" with candidates even when you've decided not to like them...but I won't hold my breath, since it's much easier to attack when you only stick to the headlines.

As for waiting eight years before you'll trust Romney on the issue, what this gets down to is trust, right?  You want to TRUST that the GOP nominee will nominate judges to overturn Roe?  Voters want to TRUST what the nominee says he'll do.

The reason people trust Romney to stick to his federalist statements about overturning Roe is because of his track record of campaign promises.  When he makes them, that's what he means to do (whether or not you LIKE what he promises).  Can you point to me a promise he made where he didn't stick to it?  I'll name a few where Romney DID stick to his promises:

1. Promised to not change MA abortion laws, and vetoed legislation for the abortion pill
   
   
2. Promised to get MA out of debt without raising taxes, and he turned $3B debt into $0.7B surplus by slashing waste
   
   
3. Promised to reform health care without creating a new government bureaucracy, which he did
   
   
4. Promised to oppose same-sex marriage, a cause for which he is the national champion right now
   
   
5. Promised to reform education

When Mitt makes a campaign promise, that's what you get, like it or not.

GG: "Did the GC compel Romney to appoint two homosexual activists to the court?"

Nope, they compelled him to appoint two activists to the court.  To get 25% republicans through the nomination, Romney had to give the 100% liberal GC some of what they wanted.  And they wanted activists.

Now is your complaint that the two nominees were activists, or is your complaint that they were homosexuals?

...and that'll also be the complaint of many GOP primary voters.

Murphy: "What this gets down to is trust, right?  You want to TRUST that the GOP nominee will nominate judges to overturn Roe?  Voters want to TRUST what the nominee says he'll do."

Yes, I think the question of trust will be the basis on which many socially conservative GOP primary voters will refuse to support Mitt Romney, given his consistently unequivocal pro-abortion on demand rhetoric throughout his entire political career, which he suddenly announced eleven months ago, in prep for a presidential candidacy, had dramatically "evolved" (i.e., flip-flopped).

And many others will not trust him given his support for homosexual Scoutmasters, same-sex benefits for public employees, appointment of homosexual activists to the court, endorsement of Kennedy's federal "gay rights" law (the state-level version of which forced Catholic Charities to process homosexual adoptions in violation of their religious convictions), etc., etc.

And yes, I knew your sophistry was coming -- in fact, invited you to make the play in responding to your question about who I voted for in '80 and '84 -- and I had an equally fine time working up the appropriately righteous indignation about your questioning the Gipper's pro-life credentials, or my own.

As I said above regarding a long-time track record on which trust is established, check back with me when Romney's been "pro-life" as a matter of public policy longer than he's been pro-abortion on demand.  That works out precisely to be 2016, and there is a presidential race that year too.

If he wants my support, and that of many other social conservatives, I believe, he will also by that time have to prove that his position on homosexual Scoutmasters and Kennedy's "gay rights" legislation et al has also "evolved" in the right direction.

GG-"So you (like me) disagree with the pro-Roe, pro-legalized abortion stand Romney took up until deciding to run for prez"

My point was that the LDS Church has no official legal stance on abortion, you kind of ignored that in your reply. To say that Romney was opposite of the Church's teachings because of the statements he made in the past, is clearly misleading. You intend to ignore good points and move onto something else.

His past comments are really of no worry to me. I am convnced as to were he stands and what he will do. Roe is only one of many issues. As stated before, only 47% of Republicans think Roe is bad ruling (I am one of them) I can assure of that 47% there is a wide range of views on the subject.

Boy Scouts:

Church Responds to Supreme Court Ruling on Boy Scouts

28 June 2000

LDS Church:

"The Church applauds today's decision by the Supreme Court affirming the constitutional right of the Boy Scouts of America as a private association to determine its own standards for membership and selection of leaders."

Romney:

"I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation

Sounds pretty in line with me. The end result is the same. I think the LDS church only has problems with Gay Scout masters- the only info I could google was the LDS chucrch pulling out if there were gay Scout masters, not other positions. Romney did not state, "I wanted Gay scout masters" so youre arugument that he is opposite of the LDS position is great hyperbole.

GG-"Finally, no doubt many LDS voters will support Romney.  The ones I know have been initially excited about his candidacy, but all the more disgusted after learning about his record that a good Mormon would ever have taken the stands he has."

If you get all your info from a Chevy dealer you undoubtedly think FORD stinks.

I loved the debate and also your sentiments.

Clearly, you have done a lot more for the GOP in the last two decades than I have done in the last 13 years.

I didn't mean to throw a bigotry charge at the diarist and I sincerely apologize if that is how my comment read.

I did change the Wiki entry.  (Though the author of the entry will probably reset it and thereby destroy my correction.)

I see Romney as being one of maybe 3 or 4 Republicans who will be truly electable in a very, very contentious election year in 2008.

But I respect your right to have a different opinion.  I am only Young Grasshopper at this website.

You are right now no pro-lifer would sign a bill with the words health in it but when Reagan did it it is an understandable mistake.  I'm still not sure though from your post if you would consider Reagan pro-life.

"By 1980, Mr. Reagan was campaigning for president in favor of banning abortion in all but rare cases."

None of us want someone dead regardless of how they were conceived but let's look at it a little objectively.  The real question for all pro-lifers and how they make their decisions is when does a child become a "person" afforded rights of life and protection.

What if your friend's mother took the morning after pill which prevents ovulation and fertilization?  Or perhaps the rapist used a condom she still would have never been born.  So I'm going list a few possibilities that I have heard argued and see where you think the pro-life camp ends.

1.    Sperm and Egg are potential for life so condoms and other barriers should not be used

2.    A fertilized egg (child) is a person and therefore should be protected

3.    An implanted egg (child) is a person and therefore should be protected

4.    When the child has divided its cells X amount of times it's a person

5.    When there is a heart beat the child is a person

6.    When there are brain wave activity the child is a person

7.    When the child begins to move it is a child

?     At some barratry time the child is a baby

?     At some point where the soul enters the child they are a person

8.    When the child leaves the womb

9.    Some point after birth when the child is named.

As I see it you have to draw the line of independent life somewhere between 1 and 9.  Reagan thought rare cases of abortion were ok so he didn't think 1.  I just want to clear up definitions.  Where do you think that the pro-life camp ends? 2,4, ?.  I think it is important that we are all working off the same definitions.

?     At some barratry time the child is a baby

is supposed to be

At some arbitrary time the child is a person

...a proposed state constitutional amendment I'm actively supporting, reads as follows:

"The right to due process, whereby no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the right to equal protection of the law, vest at conception. A 'person' for purposes of the Constitution and laws of the State of Michigan exists from the moment of conception."

I think that would be a 2.

...cause I was one once, and took a lot of scalps nonetheless.

You simply said you are against legalized abortion.

And in respose, I simply pointed out that your position is the diametric opposite of Romney's clear unequivocal statements of support for legalized abortion on demand over his entire decade-long political career, up until July 2005 when prepping a run for the White House.

And surely your conscience pricked you when you tried to slip right by the glaring contradiction between Romney's position on the Scouts' ban on homosexuals and the LDS Church's.

I'll give you another try.  Show me any quote in which the LDS Church "says the same thing" as this:

ROMNEY: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

You know good and well, Bon, that Romney's statement that "all people should be allowed to participate...regardless of their sexual orientation" is diametrically opposed to the Scouts' policy, and the Church strongly supports that policy, so strongly that according to your own post above, the LDS Church would withdraw its support of Scouting if that policy ever changes.

BOSTON GLOBE

October 27, 1994

"Meanwhile, Romney came in for some fire of his own, not from the Kennedy camp but from an organization on whose executive board he sits -- the Boy Scouts of America.  A Boy Scout spokesman said the Republican candidate may have run afoul of the group's strict rule that board members support Boy Scout policies, including its ban on homosexuals. Asked about the policy in Tuesday's debate, Romney said, 'I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.' But he then added, 'I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.'

'From where I'm sitting, that doesn't appear to be a consistent statement,' said Richard Walker, the Boy Scouts' national spokesman. 'His second statement seems to be inconsistent with our policy and as a member of the executive board he is expected to support our policy.'"

...opens up an even broader can of worms for Mitt and for the culture at large, and a supposed conservative should not legitimize or enable such rhetoric or reasoning.

As a Michigan Association of School Boards spokesman explained to the Oakland Press:

"Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term 'sexual orientation' in their anti-harassment policies. 'Schools need to be very careful with that,' he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of 'sexual orientation' could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses."  http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/031305/edu_20050313006.shtml

Umm, I understand what you think of Romney and all, but thats a pretty redundant quote. Of course sexual orientation refers to the orientation of sexuale practices, I don't understand what else it could me. So why would using it to describe gay people be a problem?

If you are trying to imply Romney meant people who have sex with corpes and animals would make great scout masters, by putting some quote by a school board person from Michigan than it shows how desparate you are to twist the facts.

LDS and Boy Scouts,

Show me a quote where the LDS church say gays can't participate in scouting. They only didn't want gay scout masters, that was it. Anything else was never commented on by the LDS Church.

Both Romney and LDS church agreed that the BSA should pick their own policies.

Surely your conscience pricked you each time when you have mistated the truth. Thats called lying- saying things with the intention to decieve.

In have noticed you have given up on the LDS position on abortion- which has wide latitude in it. Another area you have twisted the truth to support your anti-Romney agenda which it's anyones guess are the real intentions, since your reported intention don't hold water.

Jason Bonham

So you believe 2.  How bout those people who believe 3 or 4?  Can they call them selves pro-life if they would have Roe over turned or would vote for laws like stopping partial birth abortions?  I would guess that about ½ of conservatives (only a guess) fall in the 1 and 2 categories... so how do we deal with the rest of them? Are they pro-life?

Also if someone changed their view from 5 to 2 wouldn't you rejoice and be glad instead of tearing them apart for being at 5 for so long.

How do we vote then?  Do we vote for the person who believes in 4 when there isn't one who believes in 2, but vote for the person who believes in 2 whenever possible?

I'm just trying to understand your arguments and where you're coming from.

It's also good to see you branching out on other subjects and looking at things critically.  Kudos to you.

Oh yeah I had a question too about your amendment.  It sounds like solid pro-life stuff but I'm curious about the "property rights".  How does that fit in?  So if my 2 year old gets a viper for his birthday I can't take it away unless I go to court?  I'm just wondering if that part of it might cause a legal mess?  I don't know I'm not a lawyer but the property rights thing sounds like it could be messy.  What is the purpose of that part?

...clearly understood my point, that carelessly adopting the PC rhetoric of the left leaves you open to all kinds of interpretations.

Romney clear intended to express his personal opposition to the Scouts' ban on individuals inclined toward or involved in homosexual behavior.

But he didn't use those words.  He used the PC verbiage of the left, i.e., "sexual orientation," an imprecise term subject to broad interpretation, which is why the Michigan Assn. of School Boards -- certainly no bastion of conservative thought -- nonetheless warns local school districts not to use the term.

And I see you've given up altogether, resorting to (1) simply denying that Romney said what he said or (2) denying the plain English meaning of what he said.

I challenge you to document any statement I've made that is not factual.

You may not like the Romney positions I've exposed.  You may not like my interpretations.  But I'm interested to see if you can back up -- with documentation -- your baseless accusation of "lying."

Remember, you're the one trying to get people to believe that the term "all people" doesn't include certain categories.

What exactly does the plain English word "all" mean, if it doesn't include adult males involved in homosexual behavior?

All means all, and that's precisely what Romney said, in the context of being asked about the Scouts' ban on homosexuals, which everyone knows applies to Scoutmasters, other adult leaders, or members.

The Scouts understood Romney's statement and publicly rebuked him for it.

Plain English: Romney opposes the BSA policy.  The LDS Church supports the BSA policy.

Any claim to the contrary is a prevarication...or the 3-letter word that also describes it.

The "property rights" reference is merely a citation of the bundle of rights already guaranteed to all "persons" by the state constitution.

Our proposed amendment simply defines "person" to include all human life from the point of conception.

And we should support candidates who have a long, reliable, and trustworthy record on issues we care about.

If Romney's still pro-life in ten years, then he can fairly argue that we should forget the ten years he spent vigorously defending abortion on demand...meaning he wasn't even on your "pro-life" scale as I recall it.  

I never said what I considered pro-life.  My scale included the most restrictive stance to the most liberal stance.  I was trying to see where you would draw the line on who was pro-life or not.

Applications for leadership and membership do not inquire into sexual orientation. However, an individual who declares himself to be a homosexual would not be permitted to join Scouting. All members in Scouting must affirm the values of the Scout Oath and Law, and all leaders must be able to model those values for youth.

So again BSA policy is don't ask don't tell.

mmmmm not exactly prohibitive is it?

Sorry, I re-read your post, to me you were making an implication out of Romney's statement that wasn't there. Was I grasping at Straws? No, just reading a statement that was intentionaly meant to be vague so as to imply that Romney supports deviant sexual behaviors, something he clearly does not.

As for setting a standard for what the proper terms are, you're in no position to do so, neither is the Board your quote referanced. I can't remember thinking before I used a word what the Michigan Assn. of School Boards would think.

I really doubt anyone reading Romney's quote would see it to mean people who like sex with corpses.

"As for Romney, it's his record of support of Roe and abortion on demand...that's at odds with the moral values of the LDS Church" - Gary Glen

Here is were you used half truths to intentionally mislead.

The LDS Church has not commented on Roe. They have never made any official statements regarding the legal situation concerning abortion. To say that Romney who at one time supported Roe was at odds with the LDS church was simply not true. For someone who claims so much knowledge concerning the LDS Church, it's seems amazing you could make this error unintentionaly.

"...and his personal disapproval of the Boy Scouts' position that homosexual behavior is incompatible with the Scouts moral standards, that's at odds with the moral values of the LDS Church." Gary Glenn

Romney never voiced a personal disapproval of the Scouts policy gays- if he did please show the quote. So far nothing quoted by you would fit that criteria.

Romney only stated gays should be able to participate, which they can. I know some who do -in LDS units. He did not say in what function and to what degree gays should be able to participate. As a matter of fact the quote you've been citing only has Rommney on the record of directly supporting the scouts.

As has been said before, (corbenRice recent Post "BSA") the BSA does not inquire into sexuality, therefore it is not possible to say they are opposite of what Romney said, since the opposite would be Gays being totally banned- and they are not.

Also lets refer to your quote of the BostonGlobe article. This quote by BSA spokesperson never was intended as an official rebuke of Romney. Rather it is the spokesperson's personal opinoin, if you read the quote directly. Did the BSA take any action towards Romney? Nope. After all they kick out Gay scout masters (a good thing) why didn't they kick out Romney?

"And I see you've given up altogether, resorting to (1) simply denying that Romney said what he said or (2) denying the plain English meaning of what he said." Gary Glenn

It's hard to give up something you never did. This is another mistatement. Please show me the post were I stated your quotes don't exist in reality.

"Romney was endorsed by the pro-abort Republican Majority for Choice, and twice by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.  Such groups don't endorse a candidate unless they're convinced he's philosophically committed to their cause"-Gary Glenn

This is what I mean by stating only half of the story to make an un true statement. You left out that Romney is no longer endorsed by them, and that other prominent republicans have been endorsed by them (i.e. GW Bush)

"You may not like the Romney positions I've exposed.  You may not like my interpretations."-Gary Glenn

What did you expose? Nothing. To say you exposed something is to say you brought something hidden or secret out into the open. I believe all you comments were already out there for people to read before you came along.

But the second part you get right. You're opinions are interpretations in the sense that our brains interpret every bit of info and make a decision on how to apply the info. Other than that the word "interpretation" is far too kind for your misapplications of truth.

"...your baseless accusation of "lying."-Gary Glen

Hmmmm. I still say a lie is saying anything (whether factual or not) so as to decieve people. In my estimation you fit in this catagory perfectly. Sorry, I think you do alot of good in other areas, but in this one I think there is something more than you don't like Romney. I bet if we were discussing another topic, we would probably agree.

I am sure you recognize he has a very good chance of being your President, or else why would you be spending so much time on just Romney?

...since he said he believes that "all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

Let's try some plain English (though I acknowledge it's a difficult language for some).

If an individual "declares himself to be a homosexual," the Scouts' policy is clearly and unequivocally prohibitive.  That person "would not be permitted to join Scouting."

The LDS Church supports this Scout policy -- according to Bonham's recent post, so much so that the Church would withdraw its support if the Scouts changed the policy.

Mitt Romney expressly disagrees with the Scout policy and thus the position of his own church.  Romney believes "all people" -- in English, this would include adult males who openly declare themselves to be homosexuals -- should be permitted to join Scouting.

English can be a tough language, but this is one of the easier passages to understand, both by the Scouts and by Romney, and they clearly express opposite viewpoints.

Which is why the Boy Scouts leveled a rare public rebuke, even accusing Romney of violating his apparent oath (or at least commitment) to publicly support Scout policy as a member of its national executive committee:

BOSTON GLOBE

October 27, 1994

"Meanwhile, Romney came in for some fire of his own, not from the Kennedy camp but from an organization on whose executive board he sits -- the Boy Scouts of America.  A Boy Scout spokesman said the Republican candidate may have run afoul of the group's strict rule that board members support Boy Scout policies, including its ban on homosexuals. Asked about the policy in Tuesday's debate, Romney said, 'I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.' But he then added, 'I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.'

'From where I'm sitting, that doesn't appear to be a consistent statement,' said Richard Walker, the Boy Scouts' national spokesman. 'His second statement seems to be inconsistent with our policy and as a member of the executive board he is expected to support our policy.'"

(Original source document available for fee at www.bostonglobe.com)

I spent the last hour crafting a detailed response to this one, then hit the wrong key and lost it.

In summary, I thought the transparently obvious quibbling and evasion of the facts was, as I put it, pitiful.  And I think beneath you.

Especially the part where you laughably argue that Romney's clear English is not at odds with the BSA ban on homosexuals and the LDS Church's support of that policy.

Even worse, your ridiculous (and apparently telepathic) insistence that the official spokesman for the BSA was only sharing his "personal" opinion.  That was really pitiful.

I do appreciate your acknowledgement that all of my statements of fact have been in fact factual and truthful.

Here's a good example:

I say that Romney was endorsed by a pro-abort PAC and a homosexual activist group.

You acknowledge that my statement is factual and true.

But then you label my saying it a "lie" because (1) other candidates, you say, have also been endorsed by such groups, and (2) such groups may no longer support Romney because of his flip-flops on their issues.

I leave that very creative and self-serving definition of a "lie" to your conscience and to the members of the jury who aren't Romney shills.

As to why I've focused on Romney on RedState, it's because he embodies the best opportunity for an important object lesson that applies in 2008 and every election:

If you want social conservatives' support, don't spend your entire political career undermining our values, supporting and giving rhetorical aid and comfort to the enemy, and then expect us to come running just because somebody hands you a new set of talking points diametrically opposed to all that you've said before.

If you can name me a candidate who's more transparently than Romney trying to craft a public image with social conservatives that is more glaringly at odds with his previous record, you can help refocus my attention.

Happy 4th!

...in the first draft that's worthy of note.

You write: "The LDS Church has not commented on Roe. They have never made any official statements regarding the legal situation concerning abortion. To say that Romney who at one time supported Roe was at odds with the LDS church was simply not true. For someone who claims so much knowledge concerning the LDS Church, it's seems amazing you could make this error unintentionaly."

Bon, I'm surprised that you, as a member of the LDS Church, would engage in such obvious quibbling over Romney statements that were clearly at odds with the Church's values.

Note that my original quote you cited above said that Romney's "record of support of Roe and abortion on demand (is) at odds with the moral VALUES of the LDS Church."

No one can credibly argue that Romney's decade-long record of support -- for Roe, for abortion on demand without limitation, and for a woman's alleged "right to choose" to terminate her prenatal child's life for even social or financial convenience -- is not at odds with the VALUES of the LDS Church.

It's English, Bon.  Words have meaning.

I said VALUES, and you for purposes of obfuscation and evasion, you respond by quibbling over what the Church has or has not said about the "legal situation" of abortion.

"I really doubt anyone reading Romney's quote would see it to mean people who like sex with corpses."

I agree.

In context, in response to a reporter's question about the Scouts' ban on homosexuals, Romney was clearly referring to openly practicing homosexuals when he said he felt "all people should be allowed to participate in Scouting  regardless of their sexual orientation."

...a belief diametrically opposed to the Scouts' prohibitive ban on openly declared homosexuals and his own church's strong support of that ban.

Obviously you dont understand what word "values" in your own sentence would mean.

Did you mean by "values" the values promoted in the official teachings of the LDS church? If so than this is were you are off.

If you mean by LDS Church values a group of LDS people with a specific value system then that would be a very weak argument since you could find all sorts of "values" that anyone would be opposed to since the chruch is spread out among nearly every nation and culture.

The LDS church's "values" on abortion concerns only the act being one the church would find sinful. How could you state the Church has a value against legalized abortion when they have never made a statement to support this?

In order to be inline with LDS values, you would have to only find it morally wrong. I don't think that Romney ever said or thought he was personally for abortion as a valid alternative to birth control and that he would recommend it to a family member struggling with the issue. That would be the only way you could define him as opposed to the Church's values.

Look I am for it being made illegal and clearly oppose Roe, but I am honest enough to acknowledge that the church has never taught this, only that it is sinful and "disgusting."

To state that finding a particular stance on the legality of abortion to be at odds with the Values of the church would put alot of great LDS people at odds with the Church. Such as David o. Mckay (a Dem) Bruce McKonckie (McKonckie family is widely known as Dems) Marlin K. Jensen (another Dem who actively supports the Dem Party currently) and James E. Faust (another Dem). Were all these men opposed to the Church's values as they served as presidents of the Church, apostles, 70's etc.?

I really don't think you understand the Church's position enough on this issue to make any sort of relevant argument. Not because your not LDS, but simply because you don't have a handle on the facts concerning the LDS/abortion issue. There is alot more to it than thinking the LDS church thinks it should be illegal. You are really fighting a loosing argument on this one.

Further more Romney has put limits on abortion, such as parental notification and other expansions proposed by the legislature in his state, this has been covered in other threads, which you ignore.

The fact is when Romney is president he will undoubtedly appoint SCOTUS judges like Scalia and Roberts. Which is what our country needs.

I read it to mean:

sexual orientation= gay and lesbians

To limit his comment to mean only those who are out of the closet, would be assuming a meaning to his comments that wasn't implied by Romney.

Here is Websters Dicionary meaning of Lie:

"a statement known by its maker to be untrue and made in order to deceive"

This can be found here:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/thesaurus?book=Thesaurus&va=lie&x=5&
y=15

Now obviously Websters put two criteria on the meaning of Lie:

1. the statement is "untrue"
   
   
2. The statement was made "in order to decieve"

But if someone told me a bunch of half-truths (example: leaving out half of the story)to lead me to a false conclusion I would still say they lied to me. This is level integrity that my parents taught me.

Take this quote from your last post for instance:

You acknowledge that my statement is factual and true.

But then you label my saying it a "lie" because (1) other candidates, you say, have also been endorsed by such groups, and (2) such groups may no longer support Romney because of his flip-flops on their issues.

I leave that very creative and self-serving definition of a "lie" to your conscience and to the members of the jury who aren't Romney shills.

You definitly intended to lead a reader into thinking that Romney has the support of Gay activist groups, which he no longer does. You also tried to imply that this would make a conservative candidate unelectable which is untrue also. Remember our current President (G.W. Bush) was once endorsed by log cabin republicans also.

In my previous post for this thread I made a list of quotes where you have intentionally misled the reader- the list could go on. Unfortunately it's par for the course with you.

Lastly:

As to why I've focused on Romney on RedState, it's because he embodies the best opportunity for an important object lesson that applies in 2008 and every election

Thank you so much for your selfless service. I am glad you are here to teach a "lesson."

Let's assume that Romney meant what you think he meant.  That openly gay, pedophiles, and corpse lovers should be allowed to be scout masters.

I would have to whole heartedly disagree with him.  However since he has stated that he wants the BSA to form their policies it makes little difference.

Now it seems to me that he is at odds in his responsibilities as politician to say what he thinks and his responsibility to the BSA board to be in line with their policy in all venues.  If this is the case he probably should choose one or the other.  I'm sure too that if the BSA feels his position can not be held while on the board they can have him removed.  I say we allow the Boy Scouts decide.  If they feel his service is useful, let them keep him.  If they feel that his politics get in the way they can and should remove him from the board.

...if you'd simply buy a dictionary, and use it to educate yourself about the plain English meaning of the words we use.

ROMNEY: "I feel that ALL people should be allowed to participate in Scouting regardless of their sexual orientation."

"All"

1. Being or representing the entire or total number, amount, or quantity
   
   
2. Constituting, being, or representing the total extent or the whole
   
   
3. being the utmost possible of
   
   
4. Every
   
   
5. Any whatsoever

"All" is an inclusive, not exclusive term, which means it includes adult males who openly engage in homosexual behavior.

...and opposes abortion.

Mitt Romney spent his entire political career -- prior to last July -- insistently arguing in support of legal abortion on demand and the sanctity of a woman's "right to choose" to terminate the life of her prenatal child.

You don't have to be a Mormon to see that Romney's public policy "values" -- i.e., protecting the "right to choose" -- was at odds with the pro-life values of the LDS Church.

Your point about the past presidents of the Church is moot, at least for the names I recognize.  David O. McKay (party affiliation aside) was Church president pre-Roe v. Wade.

And he was fairly regularly at odds with the Democratic Party, as in the 1966 First Presidency statement he signed with Hugh B. Brown and N. Eldon Tanner in support of state Right to Work laws, directly in response to attempts by the Dems under LBJ to repeal Section 14-b of the Taft-Hartley Act, which allows states to pass Right to Work laws.

Wouldn't have a clue how he rationalized remaining a member of a party whose values were, and grew increasingly more, at odds with the values of the Church.  But then I have no knowledge of his political affiliation, if any, other than your reference, which I'm willing to take at face value.

BON: "You definitly intended to lead a reader into thinking that Romney has the support of Gay activist groups, which he no longer does."

Fact: Romney was twice endorsed by the homosexual activist group Log Cabin Republicans.  My point is, and always has been, that for many social conservatives, the fact that he was EVER endorsed by them (and given his record, for good reason) makes him immediately suspect.

BON: "You also tried to imply that this would make a conservative candidate unelectable which is untrue also. Remember our current President G.W. Bush was once endorsed by log cabin republicans also."

Significant difference, in my opinion, with which you're obviously free to disagree, since I'm not looking for converts:

LCR endorsed Bush because they were looking to legitimize themselves.  It was not based on anything Bush had ever said or done as a matter of public policy as governor of Texas.

Not so for Romney, who as candidate or governor opposed the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual Scoutmasters, supported taxpayer-financed benefits for the homosexual "partners" of government employees, endorsed Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation (just like the state version that compelled Catholics in Mass to process homosexual adoptions), appointed two homosexual activists to the state bench, etc., etc., and actively sought LCR's endorsement.

BON: "Thank you so much for your selfless service. I am glad you are here to teach a 'lesson.'"

You're more than welcome.  There are so many who need to learn it.

CORBEN: "Let's assume that Romney meant what you think he meant.  That openly gay, pedophiles, and corpse lovers should be allowed to be scout masters."

He clearly meant openly homosexual individuals.

I've plainly said that I don't think he intended to include pedophiles and corpse lovers.

See earlier post, where referring to pedophiles who claim attraction to children is merely the "orientation" with which they were born, I wrote: "I'm sure the Gov didn't have that particular 'orientation' in mind when he so cheerily used and legitimized homosexual activists' 'orientation' language." http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/6/14/21252/2341/244#244

Instead, I've pointed out that his glib use of homosexual activists' PC rhetoric -- "sexual orientation" -- leaves his statement open to broad interpretation, the precise reason our state school board assn (no conservatives they) counsels school districts not to formally use the term.  One psych manual lists over two dozen alleged "orientations," but Romney's obvious use of the term to refer just to homosexuals is troubling enough.

CORB: "Since he has stated that he wants the BSA to form their policies it makes little difference."

I disagree. The fact that he supports allowing homosexual Scoutmasters and Scouts will signal many social conservatives that he doesn't share their values, concerns, and worldview. He's clearly at odds with the BSA and his own church on that issue.

The latter part of your message is, I believe, moot, since I don't think he's been on the Scout committee for some time now.  Could be wrong.

Than Mitt Romney has always been pro-life. Since he never felt on a personal level that abortion was morally acceptable.

Same as the church.

"You don't have to be a Mormon to see that Romney's public policy "values" -- i.e., protecting the "right to choose" -- was at odds with the pro-life values of the LDS Church"

Once again you twist the actual facts of the matter.

Your point about the past presidents of the Church is moot, at least for the names I recognize.  David O. McKay (party affiliation aside) was Church president pre-Roe v. Wade.

David O. Mckay was obviously President of the church while abortion was being debated.

All the other people I mentioned are

But to finish off...

all the other people I mentioned are still alive (except Bruce McConkie). The reason the point is not moot is because these are leaders of the church who help define church policy (some more than others).

Explain this line of reasoning to me:

1. Church A thinks abortion is morally wrong.
   
   
2. Church A never takes a stand on legality of abortion
   
   
3. Person A has always thought abortion was morrally wrong
   
   
4. Person A at one point felt abortion should still be legal, but feels it should be illegal.

therefore person A is completly opposed to Church A.

Since this is your line of reasoning please explain how this rational works. Instead of side stepping it with your line "You don't have to be a Mormon to see that Romney's public policy "values" -- i.e., protecting the "right to choose" -- was at odds with the pro-life values of the LDS Church."

It seems to me that line 1. Romney has always agreed with, line 2 the Church has left open to personal interpretation.

BTW in my last post I believe I stated your argument's illegitamacy have nothing to do with being LDS or not, only your handle of the issues, or lack there of.

I noticed you left alone my whole point about lying. Maybe you agreed with it and realized that you do fit this definition.

Based on my last 2 or 3 posts here it fairly eviden that you have come to baseless conclusions based on what you know are half truths.

If you want to take "all" literally, one could take Romney's statement to include:

1. people who are on death row.
   
2. people who like sex with corpses
   
3. People who have been comotose for years on end
   
4. Dead people (he didn't say alive people)
   
5. Mobsters
   
6. Satanist
   
7. People who refuse to tae the scout oath
   
8. pedophiles
   
9. pornographers

I know its a laughable list.  But we can both agree that by using the term "all" he did not mean it as a wholly inclusive term. I am sure he has somesort of boundries in mind. You interpret it to mean openly avowed gay scout masters.

I interpret it to mean someone who is gay should be able to find a way to participate. And they have, through the BSA quasi-"Don't ask Don't tell"-policy. In other words lets not write off all gays, some are redeemable, if they want to work in the system.

Another term to look up in a dictionary would be "participate." As websters defines it:

1 : to possess some of the attributes of a person, thing, or quality

2 a : to take part <always tried to participate in class discussions> b : to have a part or share in something

Now "participate" is word with wide meaning in a situation like this. If you interpret "all" to be widely "inclusive" than I would be only fair and logical for "participate" to mean anything the would be considered "to take part." This does not mean solely "scout master."

Therefore it is not solid logic to take one word loosely and the other one strictly to fit you supposition. That would be "the ends justify the means." Since I would think we both actually have more in common than not, we probably would agree that one looses more than is gained when this motto becomes a way life.

Furthermore, I would like to know what information you have concerning the BSA actions against Romney for his statement. Was he relieved of his duty? I tried to google it, but couldn't even find a list of the Volunteer Executive Council.

Here is the link:

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.html

Here is the text:

Issues Resources

Abortion

Question:

What is the position of the Church on Abortion?

Answer:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

Read the last line. Now explain how Romney has not followed the Church's policy therefore contradicting the Church's morals.

Since this one has been beaten beyond recognition Ill just make a few more comments and leave you to do the rest of the beating.

Perhaps you're right that this is a good signal to people on how Romney thinks.  I think he thinks of America as a great nation big enough to include all citizens.  That homosexuals are people and deserve the respect due all people.  He believes that they deserve all the rights anyone else does.

I also think that he thinks that they shouldn't be given special rights.  He has no intention on forcing any organization to accept them.  For example his support of the Catholic Church to refuse adoption to homosexuals.

I hope that all homosexuals feel comfortable coming into my church and participating.  I think that we all have sinned and they are welcome to worship with me.

Romney's America and mine is one of inclusion.  My America's freedom, liberty and prosperity is big enough for a great many groups even if I don't agree with their actions... perhaps this is the message that social conservatives like me can get.

CORBEN: "(Romney) has no intention on forcing any organization to accept (individuals who engage in homosexual behavior).  For example his support of the Catholic Church to refuse adoption to homosexuals."

Romney endorses Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, which would in fact penalize a for-profit Christian bookstore or any individual of conscience for refusing to hire an individual openly involved in homosexual behavior.

It was the very state-level version of Kennedy's legislation that forced Catholics in Mass to process homosexual adoptions in violation of their religious beliefs.

Romney's fine show of opposing the law's impact on Catholic adoption agencies was irrelevant and ineffectual, while he endorses passing the exact same kind of law federally.

...but I've found from experience that the most effective response -- when someone has been reduced to such flailing that all they can do is yell "liar," the most effective thing to do is just let them keep yelling and allow their argument to collapse of its own weightlessness.

Anyone who's read my posts, especially the earliest ones where I took care to provide links to original sources documents in each case, knows that I've simply quoted Romney's own words and public policy positions.

You yourself have said my statements are factual and true, but accuse me of "lying" because I don't feel compelled to recite the spin or flip-flops or rationalizations offered by Romney shills.

So you go on and call me a "liar" if you think that's effective.  I'll just keep telling the truth, frustrating as it obviously is to you.

But I brought up many points where you were lying, ommiting, telling only the facts you like, whatever you want to call it.

If you feel that my stating that your lack-luster logic and conclusions is either be due to the lack of ability or lack of honsty is name calling than so be it.

The fact is you were caught in so many half truth telling, and you couldn't support your conclusions beyond the few quotes you have in your quiver. You couldn't even find the logic to do it.

Good Luck, I just don't know what you'll do when guys with a million bucks take you on.

BON: "...Mitt Romney has always been pro-life. Since he never felt on a personal level that abortion was morally acceptable."

1.  His personal views aside, it's an indisputable fact that Romney as a matter of public policy supported Roe and argued insistently and consistently in favor of a woman's "right to choose" to terminate her prenatal child's life.  (Name me a politician who doesn't say he or she "personally" opposes abortion.)
   
2.  However, I'm not as sure as you that Romney has always been even "personally" pro-life, since he buttressed his pro-abortion on demand statements by referring to his mother's support for the same, and by citing the death (due to an illegal abortion) of a young woman engaged to a family member.

...that Romney's long record of support for legal abortion on demand was anathema to the pro-life values of the LDS Church and its members (certainly the ones I know), regardless of whether the Church has or has not officially "favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion."

(No mention of judicial decisions, I note.)

My point from the very beginning has been that when GOP primary voters read all that pro-Roe, pro-abortion on demand stuff he said for a decade, up until last July, some -- and I believe many -- won't support him on that basis.  And whether the LDS Church, which clearly teaches its members to oppose abortion, has or has not officially commented on Roe v. Wade will be irrelevant to those voters, including, I believe...based on experience...many members of Romney's own church.

BON: "I brought up many points where you were lying, ommiting, telling only the facts you like, whatever you want to call it."

I plead guilty to omitting Romney cover up talking points, and obviously, I (like you) have posted the facts I like, but you have brought up no points whatsoever in which I was "lying."

Boring though it is, I challenge you yet again to document anything I've said as a matter of fact that isn't true.

In fact, my references to points of fact have been both documented, hyperlinked to original source documents and -- according to your own admission in other posts -- both "factual" and "true."

You're obviously upset that I don't feel compelled, when exposing Romney's record, to at the same time serve as a Romney shill, offering up all the obfuscations, rationalizations, and explanations.

As to the "few quotes" in my quiver, how many quotes are necessary, Bon, to factually state that Romney supported Roe v. Wade, a woman's alleged "right to choose" to have her baby killed, same-sex benefits, Kennedy's "gay rights" bill, homosexual Scoutmasters, etc., etc.

One Romney quote each is more than enough for me, and I suspect others who aren't Romney shills.

And you conclude: "Good Luck, I just don't know what you'll do when guys with a million bucks take you on."

Bon, that's been my line, and my wonder. I'm just a guy, like you, with the time to sit here and argue the point on a blog.

If he runs, what Romney will have to worry about is not a solitary blogger, but a competing candidate with millions to share his quotes and record with Iowa and South Carolina and Super Tuesday primary voters: the decade-long record of supporting abortion on demand and disturbing elements of homosexual activists' political agenda, plus his endorsements by the Majority for Choice PAC and the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans et al.

I haven't found any evidence of the BSA taking any action against Romney for speaking in opposition to their policy, other than publicly rebuking him in media interviews.

I assume, though I may be wrong, that he's no longer on the Scout executive committee, just because I haven't seen in discussed anywhere in a long time.

Is much different than saying Romney is completely opposite (or whatever language you used) to LDS church values. His past statements may have not been appreciated by your LDS friends, but he was never in opposition to LDS teachings, policy, or values. To frame it as such when you know it isn't true is dishonest.

The fact the church only gets involved in court cases that directly it's policies or programs-main street plaza, byu honor code, polygamy- would back up my point even more.

If you post quotes with a conclusion or interpretation, you should be able to argue your conclusion when someone brings rebuts them, rather than ust keep re-quoting the same quotes.

If you think doing that is effective thats fine. But I think the perpose of Redstate is engage in a coversation, which means explaining opinions.

Denying that other factors and circumstances exist is just not very honest. Painting false scenarios is unethical and dishonest.

I tell people Romney is pro-life. When someone (in persons) asks me about his record, I acknowledge their statements and then explain the whole scenario. This adds alot to my credibility.

If someone told me there problems with ROMney and I just kept saying, "No, he's pro-life" they would probably assume I was trying to brinwash them.

I don't really care if you call me a shill, I know I like to promote Romney and I think people understand it. I also think they have no problem with it.I actually find that a compliment. I can't think a better person to be a shill for. Now if you called me an ACLU shill, that would be different.

For instance:

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/6/28/122534/293/20#20

http://www.redstate.com/comments/2006/6/28/122534/293/20#20

2. You missed the point of his comment then. If I were you I would reread what he is talking about which is the legalities, not that abortion is a good alternative.

"Romney was endorsed by the pro-abort Republican Majority for Choice, and twice by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.  Such groups don't endorse a candidate unless they're convinced he's philosophically committed to their cause"-Gary Glenn

                                                         Vs.

"LCR endorsed Bush because they were looking to legitimize themselves.  It was not based on anything Bush had ever said or done as a matter of public policy as governor of Texas." -Gary Glenn

This oughtta be a good one...

I obviously spoke too broadly in the first statement.  My second statement simply acknowledges a second motivation based on which a PAC might make an endorsement, and it clearly rules out my first statement's blanket application to all circumstances.

LCR's endorsement of Bush was not based on any pro-homosexual agenda action or public statement Bush made as governor...at least none of which I'm aware.  They simply wanted to endorse the guy who'd already won the GOP nomination.

In Romney's case, he actively sought their endorsement and got it for substantive cause: opposing the Boy Scouts' ban on homosexual Scoutmasters, endorsing Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, opposing early attempts to enact a state Marriage Protection Amendment, endorsing homosexual activists to the bench, distributing "congratulations" flyers to homosexual activists on "gay pride" day, backing tax-paid benefits for homosexual partners of state employees, even claiming when he ran against Kennedy that that he'd be more effective than Ted in promoting so-called "gay rights."

The above record made Romney a flaming liberal on the homosexual issue -- just to the right (barely) of Howard Dean -- up until so-called homosexual "marriage" became the main focal point of the debate, thus rendering all other "gay rights" proposals moderate by comparison.

...when the flak's the thickest."

That's what a state senator who was navigator on a B-17 in WWII once told me.

"Lies"..."not very honest"... "unethical"..."dishonest"...

When the shills are reduced to mere name-calling, it's an admission that they realize they can't explain away the truth.

BON: "Denying that other factors and circumstances exist is just not very honest."

I agree wholeheartedly, and thus I've readily and routinely acknowledged the Romney camp's obfuscatory and rationalizing attempts to draw attention away from his decade-long record of support for Roe and abortion on demand, for example.

I've repeatedly acknowledged as fact that he now says -- as of July 2005 -- that he no longer supports Roe, etc.

It is those very facts that are damning.

FACT:  For a decade, he preached the NARAL line, even answered their candidate survey endorsing a woman's "right" to have her baby killed.

Then, to posture a campaign for higher office, he suddenly flip-flopped less than a year ago.

Given that in making my case, I've acknowledged and specifically cited his pro-Roe statements and his newly-evolved anti-Roe statements as proof that he's unreliable on the issue, please identify what "facts" I've allegedly "denied."

Nothing has been more transparently (1) detached from reality (and English) or (2) plainly dishonest, or both, than your tortured attempt to claim that Romney's opposition to the Boy Scouts' ban on openly practicing homosexuals didn't apply to adults, compounded by the ridiculous (or clairvoyant) insistence that when the official spokesman for the BSA rebuked Romney in the media, he (the official BSA spokesman) was only expressing his personal opinion.

...I believe Romney's decade-long record of supporting abortion on demand and promoting various elements of homosexual activists' political agenda "is completely opposite to LDS church values."

Name me a politician who ever argues that abortion is "a good alternative."

Like Romney (1994-July 2005), the most committed public policy pro-aborts always say they "personally" oppose abortion itself.

When your caught in a corner your resorting to throwing accusations of name calling is unfortunate. This leaves you lying again. Unfortunately you know it's more than putting a label on you, your arguments are subject to scrutiny as are mine, and your arguments fail the test of logic.  Not only have you shown yourself to have lost, but also a poor looser.

When you are clearly shown to be misinformed, and then state "It's still my opinion..." without commenting on the rebutting arguments, you really look bad and I worry this somehow might rub off on AFA, I hope not.

I have caught you on so many misstatements, it's very sad. You may not like this, but hopefully someday you will learn to reconcile yourself to what is a person making good points and what is actual name calling. My points concerning your accusations came to a conclusive statement regarding your comments truthfulness. If this is name calling to you than I don't know how anything can be scrutinized without the "name calling" label.

I hope you can learn that a conversation about the topic is valued higher than being a broken record. No doubt your record of comments only serve to prove my points.

I have looked over your website a few times and read alot of the articles. I think what you do is great. If I was a man of money I would donate to AFA. If I lived in Midland I would offer help. I am not just saying this, I really would. You seem like a good likeable person, someone I would find very interesting. I listened to a recording of you on minestarial website, it was great. I just a have an honest disagreemant with your presentation of Romney as given in your postings here. I just don't get how how you go from point A to point C, completely ignoring point B.

Thankyou,

Jason

Jason, I take your closing(?) comments at face value and appreciate the sentiment.

Just as sincerely, my bottom line is this: I will not stand silent while somebody who spent 10 years giving aid and comfort to our philosophical adversaries tries to sweep it all under the rug.  Actions have consequences.

I'll admit to having my own blind spots, but you certainly have yours...probably, and no offense intended, as it's understandable, you're excited at the first serious presidential prospect who shares your faith.

And yet you're reduced to arguing that his insistent decade-long rhetoric favoring Roe and abortion on demand may not be "technically" at odds with the values of your own faith.

It must be embarassing to have to explain why a good member of the Church has all this pro-abort, pro-homosexual agenda stuff in his background.  I don't disrespect you for so loyally trying to whitewash his record.  I just suggest that some other LDS candidate, whose record on social issues is not quite so embarrassing, would be more worthy of your loyalty.

It's more than his religion, it's his ability to lead, his stances on all issues, and his ability to win. There is nothing embarassing about Romney. If there was believe me I would stop now. I have nothing to gain from this since I am classical musician and I don't support the goverment contributing to the arts.

But I would think it is embarassing finding yourself unable to back up your opinions when rebutted- I know I would be. It was probably also embarrasing to find out the LDS has no problem with democrats and takes no political stance on abortion. It was probably embarrasing when you read the church's latest statement on politics saying that the teachings of Christ can be found in both parties.

I am sure it was embarrasing to find out that Romney's quote on the BSA holds nothing contrary to the realities of BSA policy. And I am sure there was a bit of embarassment when you were caught mistating Log Cabins intentions.

I am sure it is embarassing as well as frustraiting to see Bush's money men lining up behind Romney, Conservative Senators of your own state rebuffing your attempts to knock down Romney, The Sterling Foundation helping Romney, Idaho GOP ignoring your friends letters, and I could go on.

But I will say, in all honesty, that despite your regular work and the attention you get in mainstream media, it's an honor you take the time to talk with me.

Jason Bonham

Jason, you're...delusional.  (said with a smile)

But if you're happy in your delusions, as you apparently are, I shall not deprive you of them.

Except this one:

"...conservative Senators of your own state rebuffing your attempts to knock down Romney...Idaho GOP ignoring your friends letters..."

Yes, I was really distraught that these things happened in media stories that were reported nationwide and helped educate millions of people across America about Mitt's record on abortion and the homosexual agenda.

(If somebody didn't disagree, there'd be no conflict, and the media wouldn't cover it.)

I thought it was a good post.

...on Slim Jim's diary, to whom I humbly pass the baton for a while.

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

I have no clue who Slim is, but the facts about Romney's record are universally available.

thats why Romney is doing so well!!!

While you at it you should make it over to American Mattress, they make lying comfortable.

Jason

...a "liar" is...well, you know.

Since I am honest I feel comfortable saying you have made some decieving posts before, I have caught you in them with you making no effort to back them up other than to just keep blindly repeating them.

IMO:

Decieving statements = lies

Jason

...happily persist, all truthful evidence to the contrary.

But here's a simple test of your honesty.

True or false: The following statements by Mitt Romney constitute what is universally recognized by pro-life Republicans to be the so-called "pro-choice" position on the issue of abortion (i.e., the opposite of the pro-life position).

Romney 1994 U.S. Senate debate: "I believe that abortion should be SAFE AND LEGAL in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. 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."  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/02
romneys_revolving_world

Romney 2002 gubernatorial campaign website: "On Abortion Rights. As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current PRO-CHOICE status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be FREE TO CHOOSE based on their own beliefs, not the government's."  http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/

Romney 2002 NARAL/Planned Parenthood candidate survey response: "I respect and will protect a woman's RIGHT TO CHOOSE. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be FREE TO CHOOSE based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is no candidate in the Governor's race in either party would deny women ABORTION RIGHTS."  http://www.pplm.org/Facts/rf_fact/pr_2005_07_14.htm