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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Nice hit piece...
(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.
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.
"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!
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!
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?
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.
@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.
@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.
*'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.