Redstate

That allen's track record is longer.  i have already stated that both of them would appoint judges who'd overturn roe v wade.  Neither one is going to sign a federal abortion ban because thats not what we want.  As conservatives we want it to be a state issue.  

My point is that allen's track record is longer, so thats why he's better on it and social issues in general.  While they likely match up now romney was a liberal on social issues in the past and as such it gives allen the edge on social issues.

I have no doubt that now either candidate would appoint judges who would overturn roe v wade

What is more important to you, the candidate's stance on issues as president, or the candidate's history on issues?  The only people debate records is because they seek to use those records to predict future actions.

I've heard of single-issue pro-lifers, but saying that a candidate's history on that issue (separate from future performance on that issue) is more important than fiscal policy, education, WoT, etc...wow.

I didnt pick allen because i thought he was the least worse of the bunch, i picked him because i think hes the best.  I was originally a romney supporter back in 2004, i mean it was between him mccain rudy and frist at that point, not a lot of options.  Then i looked into his record after the 2004 election my friend pointed out a few things about him that i had forgotten and when i looked into his record i saw him as a flip flopper.  

From this point i gravitated to sanford but he wasnt running so that option was out and then i heard that allen was running.  I looked into Allens record and i liked what i saw, a very succsessful governor of virginia, conservative, yea he wobbled on abortion and that dissapointed me but he was still the best of the bunch imo.  he also came off to me as very charismatic and an engaging speaker.  Also i was impressed with the way he ran the NRSC, i just wanst aware he was running until early december of '04.  Plus the cowboy thing is a plus.

So no, i'm not afraid of romney.  What i fear could happen is Allen being on the tail of mccain and romney pulling a little support , but enough to give the nod to mccain.  I dont see Romney beating Allen in the primary.  

I will state that now, if romney is closer to mccain/rudy than is allen, then i will vote for him to prevent one of those two from getting it, but i dont see that happening.  

what George Allen's opinion is on abortion. I have no desire for him to be pro-life. In fact, my desire is for candidate's to say that they think the decision should be decided by the states. I have no doubt at the end of the day that George Allen would probably support a federal ban on abortion if it came across his desk, but that is not the reason I am not voting for him.

I am not voting for him because Rudy is the best choice for me, for the country. He is tough on crime, he is best person to follow Bush in terms of conducting the War on Terrorism, and he will appoint Conservative judges, i.e. judge's that will return social issues back to the local level.

It is a shame that issues such as abortion and gay marriage, which should be left up to the states, may prevent this country from having a great leader. A man who understands what it will take to win the WOT and will be able to make the tough decisions required to protect our country. However, I guess to some people gay marriage and abortion are bigger issues than who will keep the populace save and defeat the terrorists. I say leave the social/moral issues to the states and let Rudy kill the bad guys.

position on abortion isn't pro-life or pro-choice. If he favors it in the first tri-mester but not afterwards that would be a definitely mixed position. It remains to be seen how he'll resolve the apparent contradictions you point out.

Re: "You can't be a Reagan Republican and waffle on Roe vs. Wade."

Sure you can, it's just that when Reagan waffled he did so from left to right. As governor of California he signed a pro-abortion bill but later recanted.

BTW, I'm not committed to any candidate right now, since it's 2006 and I'm exercising my constitutional right to remain undecided. I have candidates I like, and a few I don't like, but I think the mid term elections are far more important at this point.

Learned more about Allen in those four or five paragraphs than I have in months on this site.  I continue to be very high on Romney, but that third paragraph in particular gave me valuable info about Allen as a campaigner I wasn't aware of.  

I suspected it was the Allen supporters who were afraid of him, but you said you didn't like any of the candidates.

I guess you decided to pick Allen because in your mind he is the least worse?

I think I can safely say he is not impressed with Romney.  See SlimJim we can agree on something ;)

You're right in that its a shame how the judiciary in the country has perverted the democratic process with its countless and outrageous usurpations of power.  It would be good if hot-button, contentious issues weren't such a determining factor in the nomination process everytime, for both parties.  

Having said all of this, even with these matters properly returned to the states, and the courts properly restrained (at all levels), I still wouldn't want some rabid social liberal in office, using the power of the Executive to advance cultural liberalism.  So it would still be valid to ask Giuliani-types what types of policies they would pursue at the federal level.  

But generally, and again, you're right that if we could simply return social policy to where it belongs, then a Giuliani-type would be more appealing.  

So finally, my question to you is why and how you are so sure Giuliani would appoint conservative judges, who would in turn return social policy to the states?  Despite all of his admirable work on behalf of the GOP in 2002, 2004, and this year, I have not heard him address this issue.  How can you be so sure that a man who personally (and as mayor) is so pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-gun control, would put his personal opinions aside in favor of proper judicial philosophy if he got a Sup Court pick?

Maybe he would.  Maybe its probable that he would.  Maybe its definite that he would.  But isn't it a bit premature to say that he would when he hasn't really spoken out on the issue?

It'll be interesting to see how Allen handles his dancing when he's facing a tough senate race with a pro-abortion democrat.  With this in mind, I'm not expecting him to renounce his support of first-trimester abortions until after 2007.

We now know that Romney's hypnotic powers can crack even the most hardheaded stubborn of opponents!

All we have to do is run ahead of Allen in the primaries, and we will get SDGOP's vote!

Obviously, if we can get SDGOP to vote for Romney, we can get anyone!

I'm having an awfully hard time seeing why rhetoric supporting first trimester abortions is any worse or better than rhetoric supporting RvW.  First trimester is basically when all abortions happn, so what's the difference?  Atleast there's a plausible argument that an abortion moratorium in MA was the best one could hope for, while you can't say the same thing about Allen's stance in VA.

Both Romney and Allen have a consistent track record when it comes to being on the pro-life side of legislation.  Granted, Allen's track record is longer than Romney's, and if this were all you were saying I'd agree with you.

But I really don't see how Allen's rhetoric is better than Romney's.  What IS different is that Allen has yet to renounce legal first-trimester abortions.

By the bye.

My next comment is still going to tease you though- You left yourself far too open.

I just have a problem with reconciling that whole "exceptions" thing with that part in the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment that says "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

...who've already drunk the Kool-Aid.

The facts will convince those who haven't (or at least some of them).

As it can be made on romney.  Most R's just dance around abortion, romney has flip flopped on a lot more.

as to where Allen is.

That something about brainwaves?is a position I've heard a few times (and have subscribed to myself when speaking outside of a religious context). Essentially, you allow abortion until brainwaves appear (at which point there is both conciousness AND the ability to feel pain--the study that said otherwise is a bit of crock) at which point you establish personhood. It's around end-of-first-trimester time.

To my mind, that's what he seems to defend. It's not a case of not being comfortable defending his REAL position, it's just his position. To say you're not a person until your entire body is outside the mother's is stupid; Allen agrees, but uses a different measuring stick than conception.

Yes, I would prefer a more pro-life candidate. But I wouldn't be too adversed to electing this strain of pro-choice against 100%. However, nothing else about Allen recommends him to me.

Because accused me of trying to play the objective observer.  I wanted to make sure people knew where i stood, i have no intentions of hiding whom i support.  

Yes, he is a flip flopper and that charge will be tossed against him in a general election if he makes it there.  Why would we nominate a flip flopper from MA when we just eviscerated one?

... does "everyone should be welcomed" mean that he wants gay scoutmasters. I've come to expect nothing less from you.

You just lost a bundle of money.  Because you have obviously NOT READ my prior diary entry on Romney's position on abortion, which was pretty harsh.  http://slimjim.redstate.com/  

"Please show me where Allen has waffled on overturning Roe v. Wade."

I think this qualifies as a waffle

"The impasse, like so many other things in American politics, was owing to Roe v. Wade. Mr. Allen's position is carefully demarcated: He would like to see the decision "reinterpreted" to allow states to decide the legal status of abortion. Does that mean he would like to see it overturned? He won't say. So I suggest that Mr. Allen's "reinterpretation" would produce precisely the same result as overturning the ruling: States would decide the fate of abortion. I pause for a response. Nothing. I get more direct. "Why won't you say you want Roe reversed?" Again, Mr. Allen is mum, and eventually I give up."

"Allen is firmly against Roe v. Wade and in favor of returning the decision to the states,"

Again, the statement to Fred Barnes combined with his pro-abortion rhetoric makes it clear allen is most definitely not "firmly against roe vs. wade."  I think you WANT him to be against Roe vs Wade.  But the facts show clearly he is not.

As for picking Romney over Allen.  You are right Romney's views on abortion aren't much better.  But Allen openly supports the idea it is ok for a woman to have an abortion in the first trimester.  And I want such a person to be President?  No thank you.  Even Romney doesn't go that far.

Finally, I have to admit I'm starting to feel alone talking about abortion on this website.  Which is fine.  But I hope all the pro-abortion people realize the Republican Party is clearly pro-life and these questions will haunt any candidate who wants to take Dubya's place.  

...of Romney's support for allowing homosexual Scoutmasters, and of his support -- up til July 2005 when posturing a prez race -- for Roe and abortion on demand.

Not familiar with the federally-funded crackhead subsidy, but I'll take your word for it.

Romney was compelled to appoint two homosexual activists to the bench (not).

George Allen would make a great President.  He will know what to do when the time comes for him to appoint a SCJ.  

i was quoted in a redstate diary post

I saw a few of romney's speeches and to me he comes off as boring and lacking charsima, not to mention he makes bad jokes that nobody laughs at.

Whats the point of this?  Supporters of each candidate are going to attack the other candidates as idiots,lacking charsima, boring, blah blah blah.   Personally i think those attacks are worthless.

For the record, i think romney's a good speaker and has charisma.  So does George Allen.  At least i have the intellectually honesty to admit that the people i'm not voting for in the primary have a ceartain set of skills, seems like some Allen bashers dont

That virginia is not the pro life state that you think it is.  In 1989, the election before allens, the republican candidate was doing a good job against wilder and leading, wilder turned the race around by bashing him on abortion and become quite militant about it.  It won him the election.

I am an allen supporter and even i know he is wobbly on abortion.  There is a difference between romney and allen, allen in the past was pro life(look at his record) who wobbled on the issue of abortion because he didnt want to deal with it.  Romney in the past was pro choice and made no bones about it.  

I have no doubt that now either candidate would appoint judges who would overturn roe v wade. The debate that rages now is who has the better record on abortion, and i think the answer is clearly allen.  I'd take someone who was pro life but danced around the issue, than someone who was pro choice and recently became pro life.

In a general election dims would Paint Romney as a Flip Flopper. That is why it matters

I'm completely ignoring a transparent spin, but happy to give you the opportunity to practice it.

You have roughly eighteen months to whittle it down to 30 seconds.

but lack of substance. You are good a witty shots, but poor at convincing.

Well, actually George Allen's position on abortion isn't pro-life or pro-choice. If he favors it in the first tri-mester but not afterwards that would be a definitely mixed position.

That doesn't seem mixed to me, considering that 89% of abortions occur in the first trimester.  It sounds like someone who supports abortion only in the first trimester is 89% pro-abortion.  

Sure you can, it's just that when Reagan waffled he did so from left to right. As governor of California he signed a pro-abortion bill but later recanted.

This move from left to right is exactly what Romney is being called on, as if pro-lifers don't want anyone in their midst who wasn't a Brownback from birth.  It's contradictory to suggest that Romney will not get the pro-life vote due to outdated pro-choice MA campaign rhetoric (not actions), while Reagan DID get the pro-life vote despite signing the most pro-abortion legislation as governor of CA.

Again, another reason why pro-lifers should welcome any and all converts to their cause.  Simply count the number of presidential nominees who openly criticize Roe vs Wade and campaign to overturn it.  To do otherwise would be to reject someone who would have been genuine and reliable in appointing pro-life SCOTUS judges.  

There's a difference between sitting on your high horse in Michigan with no accountability to anyone and actually having to govern. Most voters understand that difference, which is why your arguments hold little water.

Never agreed to any moratorium on legislation or promised to back roe v wade, he has always opposed it and believes states should decide.  As governor he didn't compromise when he vetoed the first parental notification bill and demanded they send him a stronger one.  He didn't back down or compromise when he yanked funding for state funded abortions for employees.

His dancing on abortion has annoyed me, but compared to Romney Allen is still better on this issue.

"Tough on Crime" is great for a Mayor . . . but it's not even in the top 10 for me for a Presidential candidate (Crime is largely a state and local affair . . . but Rudy sure was tough on it).  I'm not buying the exact translation between "tough on crime" and "tough on terrorism."  What GOP nominee would be "light on terrorism?"

And so George Allen has disappointed me as well.  You can't be a Reagan Republican and waffle on Roe vs. Wade.  Here is what the gipper said about Roe vs. Wade.  http://www.nationalreview.com/document/reagan200406101030.asp

"As we continue to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, we must also continue to lay the groundwork for a society in which abortion is not the accepted answer to unwanted pregnancy."

Please show me where Allen has waffled on overturning Roe v. Wade. Waffling on the issue of abortion and waffling on Roe v. Wade are tow different things. Allen is firmly against Roe v. Wade and in favor of returning the decision to the states, where it belongs. It is quite dishonest to blur the line here and say that Allen waffles on Roe v. Wade.

In addition, if you are really concerned about ending abortion I find it weird that you would chose Romeny over Allen. Romney has taken pro-choice stances and has never done anything outside of the occassional rhetorical flourish to demonstrate that he is pro-life. Allen on the other hand has been perfect on the issue throughout his career.

If I was a betting man, I would bet money you are a Romney supporter trying to play netural in an attempt to persuade some people to your side. Romney is a two-faced hypocrite whose stance on an issue depends on the place and office he is running for at the time. If you think Romney is better on this issue than Allen, than you are sadly mistaken and Romney has lied you into voting for him.

For the record, I am pro-choice and have no dog in the hunt for the title of who is more pro-life.

First of all, I suggest you take a step back, and relax a bit. Your moral indignation is undeserved, and misplaced. Your misinterpretations of seemingly clear statements lean more toward mad rantings than thoughtful analysis. At this stage, you can either heed the advice, or grow more angry, and rant further.

To take Mr. Allen's comments out of context as you have shows a clear lack of understanding of the politics of the time in which they were stated. Thanks to the conservative leadership of our current administration, it is now much more widely acceptable to openly debate the conservative viewpoint on abortion than 10 years ago when you quote him. Later, when he allowed certain abortions to continue, it was a conciliatory allowance to gain enough approval to pass a "lesser evil" law than the current standing one. You stated yourself your admitted ignorance of Virginia legislative history. As a former Virginian, perhaps you should stick to topics you are more versed in.

Before leaving you to reflect, I want to address the issue of "reinterpreting" Roe v. Wade to allow states to decide the issue. Roe v. Wade was, as Mr. Allen pointed out in the quote you provided, phrased in my own wording, an overreaching act of judicial activism, that eradicated the legislative decisions of two-thirds of this nation. This was their greatest evil. While abortion is a horrid offense, to the unborn and to mankind itself, we must not forget that what is at stake is our very form of government - of the people, by the people, for the people. Not by 9 men and/or women in black robes. Owing the Supreme Court all due honor and respect, there is little to respect of their abrupt change of Constitutional boundaries, enacting themselves as legislators in the case of Roe v. Wade. Abortion is a matter of law, and should rightly be decided by every state, much like the issue of gay marriage is being addressed, not with Supreme Court rulings and Constitutional amendments.

Many states will allow abortions. But the power to decide will be where it should be, in the hands of the people, and I can guarantee you this, in my current home of North Carolina, nothing would rid our state legislature of the tax and spend liberals who now control it faster than to make abortion a state-level campaign issue. If anyone saw the county by county vote count map for the 2004 presidential election, which was profoundly red, I think bringing abortion laws back into the hands of the people would have a similar effect on local elections. Whether we allow abortion or not is not the issue, but whether we restore the legislative process and give power back to the people.

In the general election, they're going to try to paint any R nominee as a flip-flopper. The charge can be made against many if not all GOP contenders.

But I give McCain the edge over Allen, at least rhetorically. Unless, of course, we factor in stem cells (which would only be fair) in which case they tie.

I was thinking of going to Google to check it out, but I'm like 4 blocks from the bus route that heads over there and it's so hot outside.

I need convincing.

After thoroughly reviewing the two candidates records I'm slightly leaning to Romney.  Like I said at least Romney is telling me today he is pro-life while Allen is still maintaining his pro-abortion stance.  Bottom line is as far as Romney and Allen go it does appear the issue between the two is cancelled out (as Mitt's people have hoped it would all along.)  Although Mitt's stance is far more inconsistent than Allen's.  Frankly, I'm looking at the other candidates regarding abortion.  Can the other candidates get off the launching pad?  Probably not, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it and then I'll come back and agonize over Allen vs. Romney.  

He's not maintaing a pro abort stance today.  The issue isnt necessarily canceled out because romney went about declaring himself pro choice years ago and is now supposedly pro life.  But you wont hear him emphatically running around saying we should overturn roe v wade, ala brownback.  On the issue of abortion i still give the edge to allen.  But clearly brownback blows them both out of the water.    

Realistically at this point, i think the race comes down to mccain, romney, allen, rudy, and newt.  Of the bunch, newt is probably the best on pro life issues.  I'd say 2nd is mccain and allen tied.  Third Romney.  Last rudy.

If you can't run an articulate pro-life campaign in Virginia and win then something is wrong with the way the candidate is speaking about the issue.  Which means something is wrong with the candidate.

Having seen Allen give a handful of stump speeches, I can tell you what is wrong with the candidate: zero charisma.  He's an inarticulate speaker and comes across as wooden, scripted, and a bit overmatched (most recently in his Anderson Cooper interview re: Israel).  I've said it before and I'll say it again--I'd gladly go to bat for Allen if he wins the nomination (he's better than any Dem and several other GOP contenders), but I'd bet serious money that this guy cannot win the general election.  

And as your post points out, if a major reason people are gravitating to Allen is because they think he is one of the more solid pro-life possibilities, they should reevaluate.  Take a look at Brownback in that case.  

And by the by (bye the bye?), I'm definitely leaning to Romney at this point, but the most important parts of the campaign haven't happened yet, so that could change.

People just ASSume that their guy is pro-life and will appoint accordingly. This kind of thinking about got us Miers.

discussing a South Dakota-style federal abortion ban, but it would certainly be a welcome topic.  Appointing judges that reverse Warren-era judicial activism should be a base-line requirement for a GOP nominee.  

a good point, but we're ued to it.

...in Delaware, and how high is your horse?

The water-holding capacity of my prediction -- i.e., that many social conservatives will not support Romney because of his record of supporting abortion on demand and various elements of the homosexual agenda -- will be determined in the field.  Not in the posts of Romney shills.

...social conservative activists in Michigan and nationally who share my views.

Apparently, my "world" also includes the Boy Scouts of America, who publicly rebuked Romney for speaking out against their ban on homosexual Scoutmasters.

Tell you what, I'll stand over here with the Boy Scouts, and you stand over there with Romney and whoever, and we'll see who GOP primary voters believe...you or the Boy Scouts.

About 80% of that post was stuff I haven't heard about Allen.  Please, keep it up, and I'm looking forward to that diary of yours.  Granted, I'm big on Romney right now, but I'd rather hear why you think your guy's good than why my guy's bad any day of the week.

The other side doesn't care if one is bad and the other is worse. They will exploit any weakness they can find. So will the extreme right of the GOP. If Allen emerges as the favorite at any time, they will come after him as well for not being firm on the issue.

Also, it is fair to say Allen was pro-choice in the first trimester at one point. (link )(link)

The only way that's not a flip-flop is if he still feels that way. I don't see how that's any different from Romney.

What he did was compromise to govern. It happens all the time. Romney did the same.

As a Catholic (I can only speak to Catholicism as I don't know the doctrines of Conservative Protestants) I beleive that life begins at conception. If we believe that life begins at conception, than there can be no exception (though with the exception of the mothers life) to punish the child for the sins of the parents. There is no way to get around the fact that saying rape incest or medical reasons is nothing more than giving these children who have done nothing more than exist the death penalty. I support South Dakota's ban-and worrying about judges is the only thing that's stopped me openly supporting Guiliani, though I am most in his camp even though I am a SoCon. The reason is I don't feel good about any other candidate(I've heard the Romney arguments thousands of times-I don't care...I don't care...oh boy, I don't care-I don't want the Taxachussetts RomneyCare foisted among the rest of the people not to mention Romney is an opportunist.) Also it doesn't matter-Romney's not going to get the nomination. Period. All of the Romneyites can cry, but he is not going to crack the top 3 in the primary. A Northeastern Me too Republican? Come on, I thought we got rid of that element of our party in 64 and permanently eliminated them in 1980.

Isnt it obvious by now ;)?

I've been meaning to get around to it, ive just been moving lately so its been hectic to sit down and gather my thoughts into a diary post

I agree with a lot of what you said.  In the end, a President's level of conservatism is a strong consideration, but what is more important is being able to pursuade others that conservative positions are better, which, in turn, pressures Congress to legislate in a more conservative manner and approve textualist judges.

That is probably why Giuliani is so attractive...you know that people will listen and he can debate and win.  My guess is that between Giuliani and Allen (even though Allen is clearly more traditionally conservative), the country would be more conservative in the end with Giuliani because he will be more successful at pushing conservative legislation through Congress. I've watched a few interviews with Giuliani during the Supreme Ct nominations, and he supported Bush's nominees, but he didn't seem to communicate a strong stance on strict textualism, leaving legislation for legislatures.  The next Prez will probably have at least 2 Supreme Ct judges.

You can be the most conservative person in the world, but unless people will follow your lead, it will be of little value in moving the coutry in a more conservative direction.  

I discussed this in a previous diary:

http://iamright.redstate.com/story/2006/3/24/16317/2430

I think Allen is a better speaker and has a quicker wit that President Bush, but it is still below average for a President in today's 24/7 news/talk media age.

The most conservative candidate with top-notch charisma and pursuasive ability, brains, is conservative on nearly all important issues (defense, immigration, life, terror) and no ethical problems is Romney, though I'd settle for any Republican over a Dem.

Just b/c charisma and charm are subjective does not make them unimportant.  Personality is clearly important, as we all know.  After all, did Clinton beat GHWB strictly b/c his policies were perceived as more desireable, or b/c the American people thought he was more qualified?  There were ideological reasons Clinton won, and the economic environment at the time was a major factor, but in the end, charisma had a lot to do with his message being well received.  

Likewise, it took Reagan's personality and charm to win the nomination and general election, and again for him to effect his conservative revolution.  

I don't claim that everyone will think Romney is a more effective speaker and a more charismatic personality than Allen.  I offered it as my subjective opinion, and my intuition is that others at this site might feel the same way.   Allen may have his strong points as well, and I would certainly feel comfortable voting for him against a Democrat b/c I presume he's a generally conservative Senator.  But I don't see where Allen has distinguished himself, or demonstrated excellence, as Romney has in multiple places (Bain, Olympics, academia, governorship) over the course of his career.  

If Allen supporters would spend half the time writing diaries explaining Allen's virtues that they do criticizing Romney supporters, maybe I would know what he's done (other than be a low key Senator and lose in opinion polls to Mark Warner in his very red home state) to validate the idea that he's deserving of the nomination.  I'm not closed off to the possibility, I just haven't heard any substantive support for it yet.  

Well the debate here is about abortion, and who has a better record on it.  No one will argue that someone like brownback has the best record on abortion, but between romney and allen, i think that allen has the better record.  

If you have no doubt that either would appoint the right judges, what else matters? What other role does the President have in abortion?

For the record, I agree with you. Allen and Romney are both solid on judges.

 So let's move on to other issues, like taxes, entitlements, the war on terror and things that the President actually deals with on a regular basis.

Romney's appointees have to get by a 100% Democrat panel. The fact that he was able to scoot 25% conservative judges by them is a testament to both his conservatism and his skill.

The reason i equate the two is becuase mccain has stated he doesnt want to overturn roe becuase he thinks were not ready yet, allen has said we do.  Thats why i equate them.

...from Romney, given his track record in Massachusetts, where he appointed two homosexual activists to the bench?

about his support for homosexual scoutmasters who give abortions to welfare crack-heads (with federal dollars, of course).

The best candidate who makes a solid campaign promise to appoint strong conservative judges* will get my vote. Just assuming that they will appoint pro-life judges isn't sufficient (Bush with Miers) we need something solid to hold them too.

*originalist/strict-constructionist

He's going to get a refresher on his political skills for his 2006 race since he will have a strong race to fight.  Jim Webb will be no cake walk and defeating webb will put him on strong footing to portray himself as a candidate who has proven himself on the iraq war, since that will be a big issue in 2008.  

yes unfortunately he did vote for the medicare bill, and i wish he didnt, but i think it was just largely out of party loyalty.  Few people will vote against a first term president on his agenda(this is why rinos are dangerous).

As to that keeping senators in washington, it was a paycheck protection act.  Basically congressmen/senators don't get paid until they pass a budget, which is a pretty creative idea if you ask me, but if you want to dimiss it its your perogative.

As for his senate career , i think your mistaken.  He has pushed conservative legislation through, but remember he is only a 1st term senator.  Very few senators can push their own desired legislation at will.  Even mccain can only push legislation through when its what the dems want, cuz they'll all go along to get egg in bush's face.  I.e. campaign finance, etc.  In the senate he pushed strongly for the moratorium on the internet tax which did pass.  He also is pushing and is one of the principal sponsors of the line item veto.  He is also a sponsor of the DC firearms law that will allow people in DC to own guns.  He has also just put forth a bill that will force other states with CCW laws to recognize another states CCW laws.  Ie if i get a gun in virginia i can take it to california.    I'd say for a 1st term senator he's got a fairly impressive record.

As for his speaking ability, he can wow a large crowd.  Ask most anyone from the Oklahoma GOP convention who invited him to speak, most of them were pretty enthusasitc about him and he won a lot of their support.  

As for managing large organizations, Allen was governor of Virginia, a state larger than massachusets.  (7 million vs 6 million).  

I think your wrong about him not being aggresive tv, he has a way of getting his point across without coming across angry like some people on tv.  he's got a reagan like way of disagreeing with someone while keeping a smile on his face.  I think that Allen will also be capable of dealing with foreign leaders, he did deal with a democrat legislature and since he is on the foreign relations comittee has gone aborad and dealt with foreign leaders.  Something romney has no experience with.

My problem with romney is that i think when s##t hits the fan, hes going to change his positions to  make it easier to be elected.  He's done it before, and hes doing it now.  He came off as a socially liberal republican to run in MA, now he wants to be president so hes a conservative all of a sudden.  What worries me is what happens when say in a general election things get funky, he veers left again.

One other thing i like about allen is he has experience in helping expand a republican coalition.  He helped close the gap and set the way for republicans to take the legislature in virginia.  He also as the senate election chairman helped us pick up 4 seats.  Romney in 2004 tried his attempt to pick up seats in MA, but lost every single race.  He also seems to be shirking his duties as RGA chair.  Building a coalition will be important for our next president, we need those 60 senat seats if we want to get legimate reform passed

That as governor he also got a very permissive CCW law passed and signed a parental notification law(not the watered down one the dems tried to get him to pass either).

I am willing to cut Romney some slack because of his family's personal experience with abortion.  (A woman engaged to marry into the family died from an illegal abortion).  When such an event occurs, and is the only tangible way for a person to connect to the issue, is it any surprise that a personally pro-life, politically pro-choice position is the result?  As Romney became involved in politics he has shifted more and more towards the pro-life position.  He himself identifies the stem-cell research debate as key in his changing view.  Massachusetts researchers wanted to create embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them.  This didn't sit well with Romney (or with many people).  But if it is wrong to destroy an embryo in a test tube, what does that mean about aborting an unborn child?  Logically, Romney's discomfort over stem cell research has driven him towards a pro-life position.  This has happened to several people- I think it is rather unfair for us to deny Romney the ability to change his mind as he became more aware of the negative effects of abortion on society, and moved beyond just his family's experience with abortion

I lived in Virginia during Allen's time as governor. He was very good. He governed as a conservative. In person, one on one, he is very charismatic. He is less charismatic in front of large groups. His sentences and thoughts are too rambling. I also think he isn't aggressive enough when he's on TV these days vis a vis whatever Democrat is on at the same time. I have the feeling that his political skills have eroded a bit since 2000.

I think he would be excellent on judges. He was very upfront about conservative judges whenever I heard him being interviewed on Hannity's radio show, etc., last year. The prospects he mentioned for the Supreme Court all would have been excellent for us.

However, his tenure in the Senate has been a little disappointing. His few policy pronouncements/goals as a senator have been small-ball "moderate" stuff. For example, early this century he was promoting federal education funding for laptops, books, etc. I also saw him on a program with Senator Stabenow, and Allen was pushing a compromise on the estate tax that favored family-farm owners but would not have lifted the estate-tax burden on anybody else. (As someone who worked hard for a company and hoped to build a substantial nest egg, this favoratism offended me.) Lately he has been pushing keeping Senators in Washington until they pass a budget or something, which isn't exactly something to get excited about. And don't forget, he voted for President Bush's expansion of Medicare.

So, I like Allen, but I'm supporting Romney. I would consider myself a fiscally conservative, socially moderate-to-conservative type of person. I like politicians who can come up with innovative, market-based solutions to problems and have had successful careers managing large organizations and recognizing opportunities. I also want somebody in 2008 who has the social aplomb and worldliness to cajole and encourage foreign powers to support the U.S. more than Bush has been able to. Romney fits the bill very nicely. (And if anyone cares, I'm not LDS, and I don't have a blog.)

Apparently in your blinded rage, you cannot read. I specifically addressed several points from your rant. From hence I will take the advice of Mr. Limbaugh, and not argue with an idiot, lest someone watching be unable to tell the difference.

Do you mean the exceptions like rape and others?

I think I agree with you, in that I don't see how a child being conceived from rape is any more deserving of death than is a child resulting from a mother using government funded abortions as birth control.

I really do like the SD-style abortion ban, leaving only an exception for the mother's life.  It has a very logical and pure evaluation of the worth of a child's life.

The reason I can live with politicians saying they support legal abortions in the case of those rare exceptions (rape, incest, etc) is purely pragmatic.  Since 95% or so of abortions are for convenience, I could be 95% happy if these were eliminated.

I'll probably get around to writing a diary entry or two later this week.  I think you are wrong about Allen's charisma and personality, it helped him win in his uphill race for governor and helped him win his senate seat.  Most senators by their nature tend to get few accomplishments in, but as a governor allen had a fantastic term.

As governor (and mind you he had a heavy dem legislature) he got through strict welfare reform that came before congress passed it,  educational standards among the highest in the nation, tax cuts, abolished parole for violent offenders(this was a big issue in the state that the dems were dragging their feet on), eliminated lax juvenile sentencing laws , helped spur and set virginia on the road to becoming the silicon dominion and also went about cutting government jobs and reducing its size and reach.   He also helped set in motion republicans taking over both houses by aggressively campaigning for candidates. Even the washington post which whined and moaned about him the whole way addmitted he had one records for governor in the state of virginia.  

Remember now, in order to win as governor he had huge obstalces to climb.  he was broke when he started, didnt have the fundraising advantages that his primary opponents did.  But he drove around the state in an rv and his perosnality and charisma helped him win over the delegates and got him the nomination decisively.  After winning the nomination he had a 30 point lead to overcome. He had a very tough opponent, she was a multiple term attorney general who in her previous election got the largest votes of any elected official in the state.  She was no joke and she had the clinton machine aggresively behind her(they wanted to have a female democrat governor).  He drove around the state and had a great platform which eventually allowed him to beat her 59-41, the largest margin in virginia history since the 1960s.  

For his election to senate he had to take on chuck  robb, who wasn't as vunerable as he was in 1994 (with all his bimbogate stuff).  Chuck robb was a strong incumbent, he was a popular senator, a marine hero, son in law of lbj and was a former presidential candiate himself and often touted as a future one.   Allen did beat robb, but it was no easy feat.

Make no mistake, mark warner would loose to allen in virginia, thats why he didn't run against him for senate.  You have to remember, that warner was considered a joke until he got the tax increased passed (which was unneeded b/c turns out they had a budget surplus that year).  Of course rinos caved in and gave it to him.  Keep in mind republicans having higher approval ratings in a state mean more than a democrat, because democrats rae much less likely to admit a republican is doing a good job(this is why you see democrats on average having the highest approval ratings for politicians, but republicans not).   Allen left office with a 71% approval rating, warner left with around the same.  Keep in mind though allen has a high rating throghout his tenure as governor, warners stunk until after the tax increase where the media sung his praise non stop, about how he 'saved the state'(which is complete bs) but republicans never challenged him on it.

Not once in this comment do you address any of points that was brought up in this diary.  Instead, your response is "calm down you're wrong."  Your attempt to just dismiss all the facts I have stated as a "rant" can only leave one to conclude that you are completely incapable of defending Allen's record on its merits.  I can't say I blame you since Allen's record is appalling on the issue.  Best to just distract and misdirect eh Sam?

"To take Mr. Allen's comments out of context as you have shows a clear lack of understanding of the politics of the time in which they were stated."

Ah the complaint about comments being "taken out of context" is always the last refuge for a scoundrel.  Read that interview with Fred Barnes.  Look at the Project Vote Smart selections Allen made.  NOTHING was taken out of context.  It is a part of the public record.  It wasn't "ten years ago."  It was a few months ago.

"As a former Virginian, perhaps you should stick to topics you are more versed in."

Oh please.  I don't need to be from Virginia to determine when a candidate says STRAIGHT UP he supports abortion in the first trimester and that he will not overturn Roe vs. Wade that this candidate should not be anywhere near the White House selecting judges.

"Whether we allow abortion or not is not the issue, but whether we restore the legislative process and give power back to the people."

On both of these points Allen has made it clear he is on the wrong side "of the people."  He refuses to go on record to abolish abortion.  And he also refuses to overturn Roe vs. Wade which would send the issue back to the people.

If you are going to defend Allen you had better become very familiar with his stance on this issue.  Again, I believe YOU WANT Allen to be for overturning roe vs. wade but the fact is he is not.  As a result you are left with no choice but to play word games and write a long comment that fails to address a single issue that pro-life voters like myself are concerned about.  Now it is time for you to reflect.

You call Romney a flip-flopper on abortion with an Allen in 2008 tag in your signature?

Abortion will even be an issue in the race.  Its all about iraq

Unlike you, I don't claim to speak for the base of the Republican Party. So, I'm not the one claiming a position of authority.

I thought I could express my opinions, even make a prediction such as: social conservatives will not support Mitt Romney once they learn about his decades-long support of "safe and legal" abortion on demand, Roe v. Wade, and various elements of homosexual activists' political agenda.

Didn't know I had to HAVE any position of authority, much less claim one.

I do claim that my opinion is an informed one, since I interact daily with social conservative activists nationwide.  And with no claim to speak for anyone beyond myself, I can report that many conservative activists share my views on Romney, and in my opinion, that will apply to many GOP primary voters as well.

There, you happy now?  I got off my horse, stood on the ground, and made the same prediction I did when mounted.

My point is that Allen is as shaky on abortion as Romney -- conflicting statements, but a pro-life record in office. So, believe me, it's coming to Allen, too, if he becomes the candidate with momentum.

Romney is worse on abortion than allen is.  Allen never came out as pro choice like romney did for many years, and no i don't buy the 'genuine' change of heart he had, i think he just changed it to be more electable.  Will he give us good judges?  Most likely since he saw the harriet miers bruhahaha.

Allen danced around abortion, most of the time just refusing to answer, Romney was pro choice who is all of a sudden pro life.  And Allen has only danced around abortion.  Romney took numerous socially liberal views.  Gay scout masters/gay rights, Affirmitive Action(forcing employers to release information about hiring of women/minorities), tuition credits for college, pre school programs, affordable housing.  Basically on social issues romney agreed with kennedy on about everything, but tried to differentiate himself on fiscal issues and crime.

Romney even took shots at the Contract With America.

He's done alot more flip flopping, than allen ever did with his dance around abortion

My point was, i dont want to see mccain get the nod.  I'm convinced rudy will be laughed out of the primary and it will come down to Allen, Romney, and Mccain.   I'd gladly take either of the first two over Mccain, but my point is i'd support Allen first.  

If it came down to say like.. Mccain 40 Romney 35 and Allen 20, then clearly i dont want mccain to sneak by because conservatives are splitting the vote, i would shift to Romney since by that point Allen would be knocked out.

However the question is, if its reversed, will you support Allen?  My fear isnt that romney will beat allen, but the reverse of what i described above will, ie Allen an inch or so behind Mccain but romney pulling a little support that would give the nomination to Mccain.

a President who is against Roe v Wade and will appoint justices who will overturn Roe v Wade (or at least try to, I know we can't hold them to account after appointment) has no further role in the matter.  It then becomes a matter for the states.

I tend to the view that pretty much all social issues need to be returned to the states.  Thereafter, social and libertarians may disagree.  But until then let's keep up the alliance over the things that we do agree on.