Quantcast

Comments about ‘Romney's political shifts stir criticism’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, Nov. 12 2011 11:46 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
kargirl
Sacramento, CA

John McCain did pretty much the same kind of thing when he ran for President in 2008. He looked like the Republican candidate that a lot of people might have voted for even though they didn't like Bush and even some Democrats might have gone for if they didn't like whoever won the Democratic nomination (when the Obama-Clinton standoff was still going on). Many not only didn't care for his choice of a running mate, but mostly, by then, he had changed so much from the John McCain everyone thought they knew over the intervening years that it was pretty much the base who voted for him. I believe Romney willend up with much the same if he continues with this march to the drum of the rightest of the right in the party. He already seems farther to the right of what he was in '08.

USAlover
Salt Lake City, UT

If you want jobs, vote for Romney. If you think gay rights is the most important thing, vote for somebody else. At this point, I'd rather feed my family

Kiyo
Washougal, Washington

Look at the choices............It's either Bachman, Romney or Paul for conservatives. I hope to see all three in the new administration. They have already proven that they can work together. "Flip Flopper" is no longer sticking to Mitt.

Eichendorff
Olathe, Kansas

Unfortunately, the AP reporter doesn't seem to grasp the difference between the idea of gays having the same basic rights as everybody else and opposition to same-sex marriage, which is not a right. They are completely separate issues. Romney has consistently supported basic rights for gays, and he has consistently opposed same-sex marriage. There is no flip-flopping or evolution of his position on either question.

The only position that Romney has changed significantly is his position on abortion. That's it.

pacificblue55
SANDY, UT

Romney will never win because the Evangelical Christians who control the Republican Party will not vote for him. According to them he will never be Christian enough.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

The reality is that the GOP conservative base will not support Romney due to his flip-flopping (Democrats will exploit this in the election purposely to demoralize that GOP base), and sadly, evangelical Christians won't support Romney due to his religion. Romney doesn't stand a chance against Obama because the broad conservative and evangelical GOPs won't support him. Huntsman suffers the same problem with his religion (and his working for Obama as China ambassador doesn't help).

The GOP has yet to find a candidate that has the right blend of moderate-right politics to attract independents AND rally the GOP base of economically conservtive and evangelical Christians.

Reagan, an actor from liberal California who was not even a regular church-goer, managed to pull these key GOP bases together. None of the GOP contenders today have that dual-appeal.

Six_of_Diamonds
BELLEVUE, WA

Either ALL citizens have the same rights, or they don't. Either ALL citizens have the right to marry the person they love, or they don't.
Flip Flop Romney courted the gay vote proclaiming, "All citizens deserve equal rights, regardless of sexual preference." He says he has been a member of the same church his entire life. Considering the church in question, and what this particular church has done to deny equal rights to ALL citizens and its attempt to hide its actions, this is nothing for MR to be proud of. His church spent more than 20 MILLION DOLLARS on Prop 8, and a lot of this money was directed to further fundraising to deny equal rights to ALL citizens. What was his church's noble goal? Simply to deny millions of California citizens the same right to a civil marriage that Romney enjoys as a citizen. Shame on his church and shame on him for boasting of his membership in this church. This man does not deserve to be president if he refuses to work towards equal rights for all citizens.

AZKID
Mapleton, UT

Nice hit piece...

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

(3rd attempt)

Romney said that all people, including homosexuals, deserve the same basic rights.

That's true; the same basic right to have a job, own a home, vote and live their life in relative freedom and peace. However, homosexual 'marriage' is not a "right". Yes, they have a right to get married in a heterosexual relationship but the definition of "marriage" has NEVER meant 2 homosexuals getting together.

Romney also said that abortion should be safe and legal.

True again.

Abortion SHOULD be safe and legal. However....

as an active member and leader (both as a bishop/stake president) Romney has always believed that abortion should ONLY be used in cases of rape, incest or if the health/life of the mother is at risk. I mean, really, can any LDS member imagine a bishop who counseled his ward members that abortion is OK anytime, anyplace for any reason? Get real.

So Romney said what he said and meant what he said but yet the liberal media does their best to make him look like a flip-flopper instead of at looking at the context of what he said.

Ironic that it's the media that spins things, not Romney.

ThinksIThink
SEATTLE, WA

Romney does not have any core values. I think it goes far beyond flip flopping. I looked at his website and he completely ignores the LDS Church. He doesn't say he is a member of the LDS Church on his website. He does not even say he served a mission. I just can't bring myself to support someone who is willing to hide the most important part of who he is. There are some things more important than being elected.

Kramer's Corner
Penryn, CA

"So Romney said what he said and meant what he said" is a great statement! The article is presented in such a way so people not familiar with the direction that the LDS Church takes on abortion and same-sex marriage will jump to the conclusion that Mitt Romney supported these social positions. As was pointed out, this is not the case with Mitt Romney. Also, changing or modifying a position after research and enlightenment is not flip flopping, it is a strength of character!

don17
Temecula, CA

This is just another worn out article on the same old complaints by the same ol' people who just don't like Mitt Romney. He may have flipped some positions, but better that than an ideolog who refuses to see that they are NOT ALWAYS RIGHT! Same goes for the media! Many in the media complain about a particular position change, like they have never changed their mind on something before either! Come on, the issue here is JOBS! Plain and simple!

RanchHand
Huntsville, UT

The Supreme Court ruled that MARRIAGE is a human right, not "heterosexual" marriage, MARRIAGE.

To those of you claiming that we have the "same" right to marry a person of the opposite gender, I ask this question:

Did you marry your spouse because he/she was of the OPPOSITE gender or was it because you LOVED him/her?

If it was simply because they were the opposite gender, then ANY person of the opposite gender will do, right?

Prodicus
Provo, UT

Thank you, Eichendorff, for identifying the fallacy here. "Homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron in English. "Equal rights" for homosexuals does not mean that they (unlike everyone else) have a right to force everyone to change the language they speak.

If it were an equal rights issue, homosexuals would be satisfied with same-sex civil unions receiving the same set of tax benefits, visitation rights, and other legal treatment as marriages. Instead, it's about trying to force their language and their (im)moral values down everybody else's throats.

Ranch
HUNTSVILLE, UT

@Prodicus;

I, too, speak English as a primary language. It is my language every bit as much as it is yours.

We can easily share the meaning of a word or two, no?

The meaning is the same whether for heterosexuals or homosexuals.

Language changes over time, all you need to do is go back a few dozen years and look at it from the outside.

Prodicus
Provo, UT

@Ranch: The meaning is most definitely not the same. A homosexual union has little in common with a real marriage. It is worlds apart physically, psychologically, and morally. Homosexuals hope that if they can force people to call their unions "marriages" that this will obscure the gaping moral chasm from everyone's view and lead to universal acceptance of their actions as natural and moral.

Just because you have a piece of paper from a government calling your relationship a marriage doesn't make it a marriage. ("If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Four- calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.")

Maybe next week some justice in San Francisco will start handing out "marriage licenses" between men and sheep ("end the sexual orientation-based discrimination against bestial Americans!!") - that wouldn't really make those "unions" marriages either.

Languages do change naturally, but a tiny minority forcing the overthrow of millenia of linguistic usage by abusing a messed-up legal system is not natural.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

*'Mitt Romney reverses himself, supports anti-union law' - By Philip Elliott - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/26/11

'FAIRFAX, Va. A day after he refused to endorse an Ohio ballot measure that limits public employee union rights, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said Wednesday that he is "110 percent" behind the effort.'

0 to 110%, in 24hours.

Can't beat that!

A valid criticizm of Romney is that, whatever issue you support him on...

may change, tomorrow.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments