Straw, Meet Camel
Thus We See John McCain Rise Further In The Polls
By Erick Posted in 2008 | McCain | Romney — Comments (70) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
"Though the care and management of five bright and typical boys was the primary focus of Ann Romney's life, she was always deeply involved in her husband's business and political career and in the public life that almost inevitably accompanies substantial business success." From Hugh Hewitt's hagiography A Mormon In the White House?, page 83.
"It was also the persuasiveness of a talented and energetic spouse who saw an opportunity for her husband to get beyond his very successful business career into a public life . . . . Jim Davies, Ann's brother, describes his sister as a mover behind the 1994 Senate bid against Kennedy as well." Id. at 87.
""Her contributions are for her and not for me," Romney said before a campaign appearance in Iowa. "Her positions are not terrible relevant to my campaign." Romney volunteered that wife, Ann, is now one of the heads of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, a leading anti-abortion group." SOURCE.
"[Kevin Madden] said the check was written from the Romneys' joint checking account, but she signed it and the contribution came from her, Madden said. Mitt Romney has not donated to the group, Madden said." SOURCE.
Count me unimpressed. At the time I reviewed Hugh Hewitt's book, I wrote, "Like Hewitt, were the election held today, I would vote for Mitt Romney, but unlike Hewitt, I am not very passionate about the former governor and have, over time, developed some qualms about him." As late as last week, in email correspondence between friends, I said the same.
I can no longer say that. It is not because Ann Romney gave money to Planned Parenthood. It is because this is the straw that broke the camel's back -- one light piece of straw piled on a mountain of political opportunism and reckless vacillation.
On October 7, 2001, President Bush told the nation, " We will not waver; we will not tire; we will not falter; and we will not fail. Peace and freedom will prevail." I can no longer trust that Mitt Romney has a spine strong enough not to go wobbly with it becomes convenient.
Were the election held today, who'd get my vote? The man I said I would never vote for -- John McCain. Of course, I'd prefer this option.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Our Bob Shrum & Why We Should Not Expect Much in 2008 — Comments (14) »
Straw, Meet Camel 70 Comments (0 topical, 70 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The only thing better than not picking the wrong guy is picking the right guy. That's why I'm choosing Speaker Newt Gingrich (www.draftnewt.org).
*********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
What's yall's problem with the Speaker? That he had multiple wives? Last time I checked, so do all the candidates but Romney. What else do you have against him?
*********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
I'm not trying to thread-jack this post, so I'm going to create a blog entry about the Speaker--I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on him, especially those who aren't inclined to him.
**********************************
And statesmen at her council met
Who knew the seasons when to take
Occasion by the hand, and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet
- Tennyson, _To the Queen_
One, he's too polarizing, his negatives are as bad as Hillary's or worse. Two, he's great on strategy but his track record shows that he has problems with the day-to-day tactical battles. Three, he doesn't have the money to run a viable campaign.
I'm a big fan of Newt, but not for president, not for 2008. He'd be a great presidential advisor, though.
reading this about the unsinkable Newt, and then all around me is a luxury ocean liner on a starry winter night, there's a bump and a lot of noise, it's getting colder, people look worried, Celine is singing, Celine is singing, Celine is singing....
Another reason I won't be making a choice until it is time to make a choice. I could still vote for any of the major candidates in the primary. Sure, I've got a rough order in my head but it changes.
I would say RS should be following some of the more positive aspects of the campaigns.
Rudy has given some very good and impassioned arguments for school choice, market-based health care reform and diligence in the War on Terror.
McCain's commitment to winning America's wars is commendable and his reformist zeal (if directed at the right culprits- see social security) is a plus. Further, he is still the only credible candidate on fighting pork spending and winning back the mantle of fiscal responsibility for Rs. He has a record of fighting other Rs on this unlike any other Senator (save Coburn).
Romney's a slick persona and can handle the media very well. He turned around the Catholic priest question at the debate skillfully. And his come-to-Jesus moment on abortion can be a positive if he uses it as a chance to convince others to reconsider the issue as well.
Finally, Thompson obviously understands the issues in a Big Picture way. He communicates well and gets fundamental points across without seeming political or focus-grouped. He checks the right boxes on almost every issue.
All in all, these 4 men are good compromises between conservative views and moderate ones enough that they could win a national election (even in an anti-GOP mood) and they could generally govern from the right. We just don't hear much about those positives in the current climate from the MSM or, its seems, the blogosphere. That's unfortunate.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
I don't buy companies until I have completed the proper due diligence. I won't back any candidate until I do the same. Let the process work and then make your decision.
Don't marry your investments or your candidates. Divorce can be costly and ugly.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance.
John McCain is clearly Undead. Those 75 years may not matter so much after all...
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
I'm not about to defend Mitt Romney. I've long had the same opinion of him that you now have, but McCain is a nightmare of a default option. On the Constitutional Option, McCain abandoned us, leading his Gang of 14 to stroke his ego by hijacking the Senate. On embryonic stem-cell research, McCain worked against pro-lifers to ensure that the government funded it. We can't rely on Mitt Romney. Unfortunately, we can't rely on John McCain either.
Erick,
I appear to be slavishly following you. I've been following your changes of mind almost exactly. Romney, you had me then you lost me. McCain--you really lost me, now you have me??
One caveat, I want to see how Thompson does campaigning. I am fairly optimistic about Mr. Thompson, but I may very well (gulp) vote for McCain over Thompson.
"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke
1994 TN and 1996 TN Senate.
That is really all we know about his vote getting ability.
I want to see more (not just from him).
We know the most about McCain, which is his strength among independents. But is it still there?
Cough! Hack! I sent a check to John McCain; I will support him if and until Sen. Thompson enters the race. The most important issue to me is the WAR, period. I am also pro-life and cannont support Mayor Gulliani. Mr. Romney has not impressed me that much.
Are wondering what took you so long. Especially since McCain's record on abortion has been rock-solid, and that has never gotten attention. McCain was always grouped with "Rudy McRomney", all of whom the MSM painted as not in synch with the conservative base, and since Romney and Rudy were iffy on abortion, people assumed McCain was as well.
...like the economy (when you live in Michigan, having a job takes precedence over moral stands). McCain's record on economic issues isn't bad, but he's not my first choice. If he won the nomination, I'd swallow my pride and vote for him, despite his disdain for tax cuts. There are a few GOP hopefuls that, if they got the nomination, they'd cause me to bolt to the Libertarian party, but McCain is doing enough in my mind for me to take him off that list.
I just never saw the point of abortion being a be-all and end-all issue. I want to see Roe overturned, but at what cost? I guess I am a bit on the fringe of the party when it comes to social issues, but my first priority in those regards is to make sure the other side doesn't put me in a box, plain and simple.
"At the end of the day, I seek to be a strident and articulate force on the side of self-determination. Ultimately, the pursuit of freedom ought to remain our paramount ambition. Without liberty, ideology rings sickeningly hollow."
Patiently waiting for a Fred Thompson / John Engler ticket.
pro-life but it is not a big issue for them. If you believe abortion is the taking of a life, then it seems that the murder of 1,000,000,000 children would take precedence over having a job. If you do not believe it is the taking of a life then why have an opinion on the issue at all. I just don't understand this "I am sort of against abortion but it's at the bottom of my priorities" type of thinking.
...it boils down to the "how does this affect me?" principle. Simply put, I don't intend to ever abort a child, I come from a staunchly pro-life area and have never really dealt with people struggling with the issue (and I have had female friends with unplanned pregnancies; they chose to have and raise their children and accept their responsibility), and that's about all it boils down to. I guess if it were a more personal or direct issue, I can see how it can energize you, but it's real hard to get ginned up about something that is nebulously on the periphery for you. Don't bother playing the "heartless" card on me either; it's been overplayed towards me.
As sick as it sounds, Stalin was right about "a single death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic". Repetition numbs us. That being said, if abortion were to be banned tomorrow, we'd have a host of other issues, as we can't just coerce single mothers (many of whom, if they are seriously considering killing their unborn child, probably aren't the fittest of parents to begin with) to give their children up for adoption, banning abortion could have unintended consequences to our society as a whole. I wish there was an easy solution, but there isn't.
"At the end of the day, I seek to be a strident and articulate force on the side of self-determination. Ultimately, the pursuit of freedom ought to remain our paramount ambition. Without liberty, ideology rings sickeningly hollow."
Wow, I almost don't know what to say. Populist Conservative's point is very well-taken. You're entitled to different values, but are you really saying that if you believed that millions of people were being murdered legally in the U.S. every year that the issue wouldn't be highly important to you?? Really??
murdered in the US every by doctors under the guise of "choice" and one of the major political parties has made protection of the practice one of their foundational issues.
What about that?
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
it is selfish. As far as your first paragraph I really don't have anything to say, we have a different value system. I have lived most of my life in Rural Nebraska, the closest abortion clinic was probably Omaha about four hours away, I know no one who has gotten an abortion(at least they did not admit,) nor have I ever personally heard of somebody getting an abortion. If I based things on what I know personally I would think abortion was a big myth. I also do not know anyone who was directly affected by 9/11 does this mean I should not care about it? The " how does it affect me principle" doesn't sound selfish it is a perfect definition of selfish.
In response to your second paragraph you are right that changing the law is not enough, however it is certainly a start.
I didn't follow politics at the time, but my understanding is that McCain opposed the 2001 Tax Cuts b/c he wanted to pay off the debt with the extra money and/or reform social security.
That's a lot different from "disdain for tax cuts." Just wondering what your impression was from his comments in 2000-1.
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
I have four of them: Abortion, Trade, Fiscal Responsibility, and National Security.
John McCain has a rock-solid record on Abortion. He supports free trade. No one can question his credentials, or his resolute nature, on national security. And he's been on of Tom Coburn's closest allies in the fight for deficit reduction and spending cuts. Remember the Clay Pigeon? McCain voted with Coburn on every one of those votes, even on some they lost by 15-85. The Republican Party has a lot of demons when it comes to fiscal responsibility. I'll take a candidate who voted against tax cuts in order to reduce the deficit any day over someone who voted for tax cuts, and continues to spend the taxpayers money on worthless pork projects, driving the deficit higher and higher.
Agree! Well-said. On fiscal responsibility, the only thing worse now than tax-and-spend is borrow-and-spend (given our current debt-to-GDP, unfunded (entitlement) liabilities, and projected decline in worker-to-retiree ratio.
it's a bumpy ride, especially here on RS where McCain is so widely reviled. For me, the major issue is the war, on which McCain is simply better than anyone in any branch of governemnt or any party. For that reason he has my support, sometimes reluctant when we get into immigration or environment.
Abortion and gun rights are other issues important to me (important in themselves, and also as indicators of a candidates general mindset and moality). On these McCain is rock solid.
There's no other candidate who has this combination of positions. Duncan Hunter comes close. Fred Thompson is also strong, but to me he seems to be running for VP (VP with Rudy/Romney as he is too similar to McCain).
Abortion and gun rights are other issues important to me (important in themselves, and also as indicators of a candidates general mindset and moality). On these McCain is rock solid.
That's why he voted to renew the AWB the last time it came up for a vote, right? That's why he came up with his very own amendment to that bill that would effectively kill gun shows, right? He's about as "rock solid" on gun rights as he is on abortion. Which is not at all.
There's no other candidate who has this combination of positions.
I'll give you this. McCain is certainly unique. That's not really a positive in his case, though.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
You aren't familiar with McCain's public statements then. Last time around he said he didn't want to see Roe overturned. He then went on to parrot the NARAL pamphlet myth about women dying in back alley abortions if Roe were overturned. I don't consider that anywhere near "rock solid."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
voting record in the Senate. He has a 20-year voting record on these issues in support of gun rights and in support of life -- this is not disputable by the odd vote you can cite.
"Last time around" he said he didn't want Roe overturned -huh? I think I heard him along with the other Republican candidates (sans Rudy) saying that the overturn of Roe would be a great day.
The day after the VT massacre McCain was the only Rep candidate to come out and say that the problem was not gun ownership but the inability of universities to deal with mental cases -- totally correct.
I thingk you might have McCain confused with someone else. He is vulnerable on a lot of issues, but not these.
He has a 20-year voting record on these issues in support of gun rights and in support of life -- this is not disputable by the odd vote you can cite.
Since the AWB renewal and his "gun show loophole" legislation were very much real votes that occurred in the real Senate, I guess you can't count much on his record either. Unless your argument is that he is just incompetent and forgets where he is and what he is voting for on occasion, every vote counts. These are also very recent votes. You don't have to go back 20 years to find them. Recent votes get more weight than old votes.
"Last time around" he said he didn't want Roe overturned -huh? I think I heard him along with the other Republican candidates (sans Rudy) saying that the overturn of Roe would be a great day.
"I'd love to see a point where it [Roe v. Wade] is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations."
In late 1999 he made those comments. That would be the last time he was running for President... you know, when he was busy trying to appeal to moderates and independents. He was for overturning Roe before he was against overturning Roe before he was for overturning Roe. See also: Mitt Romney. For some reason nobody takes those comments of his seriously, and as far as I know, McCain has never bothered to explain them. Romney at least has tried to explain his change of position and has a lot more time between his flips and his flops.
The day after the VT massacre McCain was the only Rep candidate to come out and say that the problem was not gun ownership but the inability of universities to deal with mental cases -- totally correct.
Yep, he sure knows what he is supposed to say. Sometimes he even says it. So does Romney and most of the other guys. I'm not impressed.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"never bothered to explain them"
First, McCain was consistently for overturning Roe before the quote. His 100% pro-life voting record backs up his rhetoric.
Second, it is most likely that he was "pandering" to moderate voters the same way Hillary saying abortion is horrible we need to give people better options is pandering to moderate voters. Would you now consider Hillary not pro-choice?
Third, he clarified his statement within the month so I don't know how he "never bothered to explain them." Specifically,
"I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as President, I would work toward its repeal," McCain wrote. He did not repeat but neither did he explain or withdraw his previous statements that there is a "need" for abortion and that overturning Roe would "force" women to seek dangerous illegal abortions.
On August 26, McCain said, "I have a moral belief that life begins at inception."
On August 31, at a news conference in New Hampshire, McCain said that if elected president, he would "immediately support efforts to move in (the) direction" of banning abortion.
And here is part of his voting record:
# Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
# Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
# Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
# Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
# Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
______________________________________
Bobby Jindal Saves Louisiana
Second, it is most likely that he was "pandering" to moderate voters
Which makes him no different from Romney or any other politician that is insincere about abortion in my book. He is clearly flexible on the issue, or he wouldn't have floated that trial balloon in the first place. Romney is just a heck of a lot better at flipping than McCain is. He doesn't flip over the matter of days and he has some excuse (however unbelievable) for flipping.
Third, he clarified his statement within the month so I don't know how he "never bothered to explain them."
Did you read your own quotes? Apparently whoever wrote this paragraph also thinks he never bothered to explain his change of heart. None of the quotes offered an explanation of why he said what he said and why he changed his mind shortly after.
"I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and as President, I would work toward its repeal," McCain wrote. He did not repeat but neither did he explain or withdraw his previous statements that there is a "need" for abortion and that overturning Roe would "force" women to seek dangerous illegal abortions.
He is not the worst candidate out there on this issue, but he certainly isn't the best either. His statements make him worse than most of the Republican caucus and he is certainly not "rock-solid" on the issue as McCain supporters like to claim.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I personally think the abortion issue is ridiculously overplayed by Republicans, so I really don't care much about Romney's wife contributing to Planned Parenthood.
What does irk me is how opportunistic Romney is about courting social conservatives. His sudden transformation from unquestionably pro-choice to extreme pro-life is absurd. I can't believe people think this conversion was genuine. Romney has amazing timing to announce he is pro-life AFTER he has won the governorship and before he runs for President.
Does this not worry social conservative how effortlessly he can turn on a dime? What do you think he will believe in AFTER he gets the Republican nomination?
I was a big fan of Romney, and I still think he has a lot going for him. Out of all the candidates running, he probably the most intelligent and articulate. He has proven leadership skills and is an incredibly good communicator.
However, I would have a lot higher opinion of him had he not try to be something he's not. He could have run on other solid conservative issues, but the crux of his entire campaign is that he is the only true social conservative.
I think that rubs a lot of conservatives the wrong way.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
too many ships sinking this week and it's May of 07, by this time next year who will be left?
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Mccain would get crushed by Clinton- he will be SEVENTY TWO years old and he looks every day of it!! If anyone cares about the GOP and has an awareness going back more than two years- you know that only Rudy Giuliani has a chance to beat Clinton. Who will do better in the blue and purple states than Rudy?!!
All this blabbing about Thompson or Romney is just putting partisan blinders on instead of making an unbiased analysis of the electoral truth for us in 2008
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
All this blabbing about Thompson or Romney is just putting partisan blinders on instead of making an unbiased analysis of the electoral truth for us in 2008
Irony is a harsh mistress.
Because nothing says "unbiased [and in depth!] analysis" like an Air Force Colonial comment.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
He's the strongest horse in the race, because of his stance on the war and social conservativism, and because he will roll over any Democrat.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
...you want the guy who's never run anything in an executive capacity in his entire life?
__________________________________________
First State Politics
he can join the ranks of Lincoln, Kennedy, Monroe, Madison, B. Harrison, and others - competent presidents all, and some rather better than competent.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Of course, only if Thompson doesn't run. I'm born and bread Tennessee, and that ones a no brainer. He's turning into our Kingfish (as loved/not actually turning into Huey)
However, if he stays out, McCain will probably be my fall back guy.
esp. since they are so friendly, and since Thompson backed McCain in 2000.
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
Everybody raise your hand if you remember that Laura Bush is pro-choice. Everybody? Good.
Okay, now everybody raise your hand if you remember Barbara Bush is pro-choice. Still everyone?
All right, now raise your hand if you remember Nancy Reagan was pro-choice. Alright, still everyone, good.
Now... raise your hand if you remember how pro-choice Ronald Reagan and Dubya were as Presidents.
That's what I thought.
--------
After the 2006 elections, al Qaeda released a statement saying they were happy Democrats won. That should tell you all you need to know.
I was going to post along these same lines but you beat me to it. This "straw that broke the camel's back" sounds more like a "straw man" argument to me. Your examples clearly refute that argument. Erick was just looking for a reason to abandon the Romney campaign, especially since his comments about Romney have been getting more hostile. Unfortunately, whether it's Romney or McCain as the next President, probably neither of them will be able to save one unborn baby from legalized slaughter. The pro-choice and pro-life communities have become ends in themselves. Endless debate for the last 34 years, and the abortions continue mostly unabated as the law of the land.
Erick, you either know nothing of support and loyalty or you are not ready to pick your candidate.
Stop making yourself look like such a fool and just admit you are undecided or unsure. It is 500 days away, you have every right not to make up your mind yet.
This constant back and forth is really making you look bad.
Erick is "double dipping" here . . . not sure of the reasons though.
When Erick found out that Romney donated money to Tsongas (Dem) and didn't like (or buy) his explanation he esentially reasoned that THAT was the straw that broke the camel's back to why he could not support Romney.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/im_giving_up_on_multiple_...
Now, he's pulling the same stunt and re-revoking his vote/support AGAIN. How is that possible?
That camel must have a good orthopedic surgeon.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
Unless he's flip-flopped on his support of Romney
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
so do we give that much weight to ann romney's donation to PP to conclude that that act broke the camels back? this is preposterous. Last time I heard, Ann Romney was not running for president. Has anything changed since mitt changed position on abortion? Nada. It is irrelevant what the wife's position is on the matter. besides, to those in the know, isn't it telling that the Romney donated only once to PP. Isn't the practice of that institution to send periodic request for donation? Would it not be a plausible explanation that the donation was made to boost Romney's claim at that time that he was effectively pro choice when he was seeking the senate seat against Kennedy? At any rate, this information is not the one that breaks the camels back in because it is irrelevant what the wife thinks unless Romney plans to do a bill Clinton and let his wife handle white house policy on abortion.
"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."
-- Milton Friedman
McCain's wife has more baggage than a fully-loaded 747.
Hillary's thugs will start a whispering campaign if McCain is nominated.
The different between Rudy and Romney's PP problems is that Rudy has been saying that he is pro-choice but "hates" abortion while Romney said that he was formerly pro-choice and now has changed his mind. The PP contribution from Rudy seems to do nothing but show that he really doesn't and hasn't "hated" abortion all along. The PP contribution of Ann shows no inconsistency whatsoever on Mitt's part. Even if Mitt said he was personally pro-life in 1994, Ann's contribution to PP doesn't contradict that.
Full disclosure...I support Mitt. I am also staunchly pro-life.
Mitt definitely changed positions over the years. He summarized this journey nicely in his speech to Massachusetts Citizens for Life. You can find the transcript here (http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/index.php?title=romney_s_address_to_ma...).
Similarly, Ann was likely pro-death back when she gave the donation 13 years ago. Today, she is on the board of Mass Citizens for Life. It was a long time ago, and a very small amount of money. I write at length about it here (http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/index.php?title=ann_romney_and_planned...)
Would I rather that Ann had never given the money to PP? Of course! At this point, however, their conversion appears to be genuine.
Please think about it.
Best regards,
The Principal Chair
http://principalchair.blogspot.com
http://www.electromneyin2008.com
You are going to rerevoke your lukewarm if not downright chilly endorsement of Romney (i.e., if the election was today, I would hold my nose and vote for him) over this??? How does Ann's donation to PP reflect on Romney in any way. In fact, even if Romney himself donated to PP in 1994, how would that change anything? Romney has always said that in 1994 he was pro-choice based on the experience of having a relative die from a botched abortion. Is it surprising then, that he or Ann would donate to PP?
As for Romney's conversion on the abortion issue, I think the best reason why someone would support abortion is because they knew someone that died trying to obtain an illegal abortion. I don't think that is a good enough reason to support legalized abortion, but I think that of all the reasons proferred over the years it is the best one. If my sister died from a botched illegal abortion, it would certainly affect me.
That being said, I can also see how Romney could change his position as that memory fades away with the passage of time and as he begins to study how stem cell research debate. I think it entirely plausible that he could change his mind at that point.
I know this won't be convincing for everyone, but it is good enough for me.
...because he has a good record as a fiscal conservative and he has the best take on Iraq and the Long War out of all the candidates. He's solidly anti-abortion and anti-gun control. He has done a few things that have driven conservatives nuts, but bottom line, he's a conservative with a good sense of humor and a pretty hot temper. So far, McCain's in my top two, with Fred Thompson being the other guy. Giuliani and Romney are second tier and the rest don't matter.
Sandra Day Oconnor
Anthony Kennedy
John Paul Stevens
Ask him to deny it.
His Presidency would be devastating to the cause of originalism.
Its so painfully obvious that the only candidate who has a record of supporting federalism is Fred Thompson. Fred wants the states to retake control of various issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc... Clarence Thomas and Fred Thompson have very similar judicial philosophies.
I've been watching McCain since he first became a representative in my district in 1982. He is a war hero but a HORRIBLE political figure for all the reasons we know and some you are unaware of that I will not go into. How much more can you pander than vote AGAINST the Bush tax cuts and NOW vote to extend them? He does support the second amendment. Do you need to go further than McCain/Feingold?
The McCain campaign is off to a rough start. They called me recently for support and I listened to a message from McCain so I could let them know what I thought about his positions on the second amendment and illegal immigration. After his message, I received another recorded message that the operators were busy handling others and to hold for the next available person. Not a chance, I hung up. How many others would go through that to donate?
I would prefer almost ANY Republican over McCain but he would get a very reluctant vote from me over any Democrat. God help us, however. Not only is he insufferable, he already has an uncontainable ego. He has horrible judgment, remember the Keating 5? He will also be 72 next year. That's just too damn old to start a presidency.
As for the AZ GOP, I am heartened. Randy Pullen was elected to succeed Matt Salmon as state chairman. Pullen is widely seen as the anti-McCain candidate. McCain has taken Republicans, like me, for granted. Hopefully, that will change.
Our favorite Republican Senator in AZ, by a landslide, is the honorable Jon Kyl!
(I live in Phoenix) I won't vote for McCain. In addition to the above, his opposition to the tax cuts that have spurred the economy and lowered the deficit projections is pure McCain.
My biggest problem with him is that he's just never met a problem the federal government couldn't fix. Except maybe border security.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
He does support the second amendment. Do you need to go further than McCain/Feingold?
should read:
He does NOT support the second amendment. Do you need to go further than McCain/Feingold?
McCain Feingold is speech 2nd amendment is guns
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As a resident of mass. Romney left the state 1 billion in debt.None of the bridges that have been in the process of reconstuction for years are complete.Parents now have to pay upwards of 4 hundred dollars a year per kid to bus their children to school and sports are now pay as you go,no longer free at public schools.He did such a great job we elected not only the first democratic govenor in decades but a black one!He will also say ANYTHING he thinks will get him elected.WE were told He was prochoice in mass.because his aunt died from a back steet abortion.
Farewell.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Over 1 big dig. Democrats at work looting the treasury.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Wow, a BLACK one even?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Much happier to have not jumped on (or off, or on, or off) any particular wagon to date.