Redstate

There's a lot of mess to clean up on this one . . .

I'll try to take them point by point (much of this is at his Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney  among several other sources):

Abortion:  Pretty fair take.  His Federalist view on abortion (states should decide) as a pro-lifer is about the best anyone can hope for from a POTUS at this point (I, for one, think he would make appointees in the Scalia/Alito/Roberts fashion)

Guns: He does support the federal ASSAULT WEAPONS ban, but "believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms."

You said: "He proposed an increase in the Massachusetts minimum wage"  In 2002 he launched a pre-emptive strike on this issue (it being a minimum wage increase that was indexed to inflation).  The fact that the EXTREMEMLY DEMOCRATIC/LIBERAL state legislature killed his 2002 bill should tell you that it was as business-friendly as it could be.  Now, the MA legislature has a bill going through that is trying to get the minumum wage up to over $8 in MA . . . the highest in the nation.  Expect Romney to veto that one!

You said Romney "Passed a wannabe Kyoto Protocol bill, called Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative" . . . this is outright dead wrong.  It was never passed.  I'll quote from the Wikipedia entry (under "Environment") on this one:  "Romney supports regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary measures.   He issued a 72-point Climate Protection Plan. His staffers spent more than $500,000 negotiating the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI--pronounced "Reggie"), which Romney praised in November 2005, saying "I'm convinced it is good business." As plan details were being worked out, Romney pushed for a cap on fees charged to businesses who exceed emission limits citing concerns of increased consumer energy costs. He stated: "New England has the highest energy rates in the country, and RGGI would cost us more." This ongoing disagreement eventually led Romney, in December, 2005, to pull out of RGGI and Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri quickly followed suit. "

Stem-cell research: pretty fair take . . . most people would agree with Romney's stance . . . would you rather throw the leftover fertility embryos away or try to help find cures to diseases?  His wife, BTW, has Multiple Sclerosis.

Taxes:  A guy keeps his campaign promise and doesn't raise taxes and he still gets the shaft!  You try balancing a $3 billion dollar deficet (like MA had when he took over) and see how you would do it . . . HE DID IT, BTW.  Anyways, "fees" are perpetually raised all over the place all the time . . . they are not indexed to inflation and so need to be adjusted often . . . and they tend to be a "regressive" type of "taxation" which conservatives should love because of how progressive our current tax system is.

Education spending:  Most states have "re-invested in education" lately with big increases in spending.  I, personally, think that if tax dollars are going to be spent on education, it should be at the state and local level (I'm not a fan of federal education plans . . . no, not even "No child left behind".)  The impressive thing are the results MA education has been having! Check out these 2005 numbers:

http://www.dodea.edu/communications/news/releases/102805_math.htm

http://www.dodea.edu/communications/news/releases/102805_reading.htm

So Mass is tops in the entire nation in both Reading and Math for BOTH 4th and 8th graders!  No state in any year in our country's history has acheived this feat!  This, among other things, has lead to MA being ranked "Smartest State" in recent independant rankings:  See http://detroit.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=detroit&amp
;z...  and http://www.afromerica.com/knowledge/education/public/schoolranks.php .  So,if Romney is putting more money into the school system, at least he's putting in the right areas and getting results!

You said: "Forced Universal Healthcare (So our choice in 08' will be between Hillarycare or Romneycare)" . . . oh please, this again?  I've blogged on this here (my diary Defending "RomneyCare"--It is NOT Socialized Medicine and elsewhere . . . this old ploy will be worn out soon and won't fool anybody.

One thing that's so intruiging about Romney is that he can beat the Dems on some of their biggest pet issues (Healthcare and Education) using conservative/Republican principles . . . all this while still maintaining the strong moral leadership that the GOP base and our country wants and needs.

Hope these ones work

Mass #1 in Math and Reading:

http://www.dodea.edu/communications/news/releases/102805_math.htm

http://www.dodea.edu/communications/news/releases/102805_reading.htm

Mass rankeds as "Smartest State"

http://detroit.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=detroit&amp
;zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.morganquitno.com%2Fedrank04.htm

For something that has "alot of mess to clean up" you did end up agreeing or partly agreeing with his record on 6 out of the 8 issues brought up. For further explanation I will go over some of the disputes:

Healthcare:

I never said it was "Socialized Medicine" because I have read the proposal and know that it is not government run like Hillarycare. I said it was Universal Healthcare which it is, granted using the private sector. Now you may agree with forcing everyone to have some sort of healthcare, even if you don't want it, but the libertarian in me won't let that sit right.  Romney himself even said, "Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate."

Minimum wage:

Once again, I said he "proposed an increase in the Massachusetts minimum wage"... which he did in 2002. Even saying, "I do not believe that indexing the minimum wage will cost us jobs. I believe it will help us retain jobs." So his very view on the economics behind the minimum wage is different from the conservative mainstream. The idea that he will increase it a little to stop a dramatic increase by the Democrats is the same logic that Bush used with Plan D, well I did not agree with it then and I don't now.

Gun Control:

What I said was once again accurate, and the fact that he "believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms." does not mean much because anyone to the right of Howard Dean will say that. The question is whether he will protect our rights to own guns for protection not for hunting, which is almost universally agreed on.  

Taxes:

I am sorry if I do not feel that increasing fees such as the marriage license fees is the best solution. If you want to look at a real Conservative Hero look at Tim Pawlenty who in "his first year as governor... balanced a $4.3 billion dollar deficit without raising taxes, mainly by reducing funding for state services." Granted Pawlenty had a Republican controlled Legislature but this is not my main complaint, and I feel Romney did an above average job under the circumstances.

Education:

I was not attacking Romney for the basic necessary spending on education but rather his out-of control initiatives. The One Laptop Per Child Initiative, which will cost the state over $53 million, will give $100 laptops to all children in Massachusetts. Well 6 graders do not need laptops and for that matter neither do kids in High School (trust me, I'm in High School)

Environment:

OK, you got me, he did not pass a "wannabe Kyoto Protocol bill, called Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative". Still his record on the Environment is still shaky at best. Even his 72-point Climate Protection Plan and "regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, primarily through voluntary measures" has been attacked as "Kyoto-type policies" Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, says, "All such schemes are Trojan horses for Kyoto-type policies. Credits awarded for 'early' reductions are assets that mature and attain full market value only under a mandatory emissions reduction target or 'cap.' Consequently, every credit holder acquires an incentive to lobby for emission caps."

Be sure to click "reply" on the person's comment you are replying too, not the "reply" on your own diary.  This way the thread lines up under the person you are replying to, and the person also sees you replied to him if he checks his "my comment" section.

Romney calling Roe  "settled law" flies in the face of federalism (letting the states decide).  I'm sure I missed soemthing there?

I agree that Roe is settled law, in the following sense.  It is the law of the land, the courts currently uphold it, its practice is widespread, etc.  That is not to say that it SHOULD be settled law.

I also have no trouble believing that settled law can be bad law, incorrectly formed law, or illegal law according to other higher laws (i.e. the Constitution).  The settled law in this case (Roe) is in sore need of overturning.

However, as it IS the law at the moment, one can't exactly disobey it as if it weren't the law.  

Just my thoughts.

If the majority of people agree with the idea of using discarded embryos for research, then the majority of people can't see past the tips of their noses.

What do you suppose will happen, if some miraculous cure were found, which in fact indicated that embryonic stem cells were the key to curing horrible afflictions? What possible road block could then stand in the way of the freight train?

I don't envy us the day when human embryos are manufactured in automated processes, to keep up with the global demand. That pharmaceutical stock would be little better than a contract with the devil himself.

I don't like the short-sightedness of any politician, who cannot see this. Forgive me for focusing on this single issue, but for me it is the wart in the middle of the forehead.

You are assuming that US policy will have an impact on global research and policy.  That is a common affliction of us Americans.  We tend to forget that there is a pretty technologically advanced world out there beyond our borders.  US policy on embryos isn't going to stop the research from being done on this planet.  It only changes the location of it.  It possibly means that people in the US go to a different research facility in maybe Canada or the UK or France to do their research.  It won't impede the research and it won't impede the results.  

The notion that somehow the US by itself can dictate a global reality through its laws is what makes us seem so arrogant to the rest of the world.

are you trying to say that, given the choice between saving someone that is afflicted with some horrible disease and saving a frozen ball of cells, you would save the frozen ball of cells?

instead of seeing everything in black and white, maybe the majority recognizes that 5-day-old balls of cells aren't the same thing as living, breathing humans.  

we use animals in scientific research all the time.  despite the fact that they think and learn and can feel pain.  why?  because, despite the fact that many find it distasteful, it is the only option we have and we recognize that the scientific gains make it worthwhile.  

finally, your comment about "embryo factories" is probably irrelevant.  if some miracle cure was found, it would most likely be produced by duplicating some embryonic stem cell that was already in existance.  creating new stem cell lines destroys embryos, but once a line is established, creating new copies of it (or some modified version thereof) wouldn't require any new embryos to be used.

...are using the term "settled law" correctly.

"Settled" law (I believe) refers to the law being enshrined by stare decisis.  That you believe it should be overturned would mean it is not settled to you.

If one believes the law is settled, by implication this means the person believes the law should stand and thus states should not have a say.  Thus, by definition, Roe is anti-federalist.

Roe is not settled law, nor should it be.  Settled law would be a decision that is so enshrined that no one seriously would overturn it (such as a decision that holds that seperate is not equal).

Are you saying if it were found that shooting the Pope in the head would lead to world peace for 5 years at a time, that we should condone it, and take our turn?

It is "selling your soul to the Devil" for whatever pleasure or prosperity can be hand now.

You may be right about your definition of "settled law".  But you may also be wrong.  I'm really not sure.

I had understood the word "settled" to NOT be the same as (for example) the phrase "untouchable and written in stone".  How did Romney mean the word "settled" in that quote earlier?  Hard for me to interpret, as he didn't expound on it.

If he means "settled" the same way I've interpreted it, that would not clash with his federalist philosophy, nor would it clash with his position on abortion in general.  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see a good reason otherwise.

That is the problem.

The ball of frozen cells is not a puppy. It is not a turtle. It is a human being, at his/her earliest stage of development.

Yes, of course, I am saying that human life should not be converted to manufacturing materials, no matter what.

.

I simply said that we have this attitude where if we decide to prevent something from happening, it won't happen.  We have to position ourselves to be prepared for the eventuality that cloning of fetal stem cells is going to happen, even if it doesn't happen here.  Are we going to have American crack ho's getting pregnant to sell a fetus that gets harvested by a France based research company?  Do we have poor women who sell eggs for harvest to get cash to buy their kids shoes so those eggs can be frozen and shipped to Korea for fertilization and cells harvested? Do we have sperm set aside by people for use after a vasectomy that is then sold for this purpose after they die or decide they don't want children?

In other words, sticking one's head in the sand is probably not going to address the real issue.  What I believe everyone would want is to make sure that human life isn't turned into a commercial market commodity.

We have that problem to some extent with organs for transplant.  We have worries that some countries might be using organs harvested from prisoners for profit.

Refusing to allow the research to be done won't solve the problem and we risk making a horrible choice ... possibly seeing people suffering terrible conditions that could be cured through the harvest of an egg and fertilized and grown to the point where it might be several hundred cells in size.  What about a woman in her 30's who has had a tubal ligation but has eggs that could be harvested to save a family member?  Those are very difficult questions.

I believe there might be a better way but it would take the cooperation of many countries ... the entire world, in fact.  We would need a global ban on charging money for human tissue of any amount, even a single cell or part of a cell or organ or piece of skin.  We must make it against the law and punishable by prison sentance to traffic in human tissue for any amount of money.  The goal of any human tissue use must be humanitarian only.  There must never be a profit to be made by the harvest of tissue of any amount.

I am not sure I have reached exactly my final conclusion on the issue. I am pretty sure that sticking our heads in the sand isn't the solution.  It is a very, very difficult issue that isn't as easy as simply spouting some rhetoric, particularly if you are someone suffering from a condition that could benefit from that research.

your point, and I am not suggesting that our actions will deter the practice throughout the globe. But then just because it is inevitable, doesn't mean we have to participate.

I feel that abortion has no justification, at least up and until the point where the pregnancy posses a genuine threat to the mother's life. I also feel that cures for adult ailments that relies on the turning of human life into a manufacturing component cannot be justified. If the practice is condoned in other countries, then it should still be prohibited here, where we do have a say in the matter.

You cannot look at Hitler's atrocities without broaching this very subject, and I am in no way suggesting that your thinking has anything to do with the Nazi mentality. But the Nazi scientists carried on under that same "let's not waste good specimens" argument. The Jews were going to be destroyed anyway, so why not experiment on them and help medical science in the process.

Again... Please do not take that as a suggestion that you are of that mindset, even remotely. I only want to point out that the "let's not waste the cells" argument lies along the same highway, and I don't think it is a road we want to get on.

.

But then just because it is inevitable, doesn't mean we have to participate

We are going to participate.  All we are arguing about is if that participation will be regulated and kept watch over or if it will be underground participation handled by criminal elements that would turn it into an illicit economy.

Should this research result in cures for conditions that are currently incurable, people will be paying whatever it takes to get what they need.  Depriving them of the treatment brings a terrible moral dilema but one that must be faced at some point because ignoring it will place us in a position where we are reacting to events rather than having some control over how things develop.

As it is now, the states are free to fund their own research and some have elected to do so either on their own or by combining resources in joint research projects.  All that is illegal at this point is using federal funds.

Still, we need a national policy in order to handle the eventuality that new cures might be available using these methods and there will be a demand for those kinds of cells.  When there is a demand that can mean life or death, the demand will be met by any means possible.

to the Nazi scientists stands. What if their research on Jewish children had nearly yielded a cure for (fill in the blank), and if we could only use another 200 or so, (fill in the blank) would very likely be cured forever?  What if it was found that women of Jewish Ancestry had a unique gland in their brains, that if pulverized and processed, could yield enough medication to cure 1000 Alzheimer's patients? Would the greater good of ending the suffering for 1000 people offset the sacrifice of but a single Jewish woman? There is no justifiable case where human life, at any stage of development (embryonic or elderly) should be consumed for the benefit of others.

We are talking about completely different issues.  You are talking about experimenting on a living being against their will, some of which were horrible, painful, and disfiguring. I am talking about work on individual cells that have not differentiated yet into anything.  We are at that point not even talking about muscle, bone, blood ... it is a stem cell.  It can be made to differentiate into one of those other kinds of cells when the correct protiens are introduced. The source of these cells isn't even from a fetus, it is from an embryo they hasn't differentiated into anything.

You can not compare the horror of what a someone went through at the hands of those "doctors" with research on individual cells.  Well, I guess you are free to compare anything you want but personally the comparison doesn't even come close.

  That is the most lucid comment I've seen so far in this thread. You're to be commended ... even if you are a bit out of place.

I hate this kind of discussion and am about to the point where I flee because there comes a point when I accept that someone's mind is made up and nothing I am going to say will change it.  I don't agree, but I accept that.

But I always go away with the feeling inside that I have had a battle with "Batfink".  "Your logic cannot harm me!  My dogma is like a shield of steel!".  Which is really okay but saddens me too because eventually things come to pass and we are left dealing with that very situation what was being talked about and then we have no way of dealing with it until it becomes a "crises" when the crises could have been avoided long ago by planning for it.

But that has been the saga of American politics since forever, I suppose.  It isn't a problem until it's a problem, and then it's a crises.

what the spark of Human Life is. If it is only a ripple from the primordial soup bowl of 4 billion years ago, then I suppose it really doesn't matter. If on the other hand, human life is unique, and exquisitely different from all other forms of life, by God's design, then to use it for any other purpose should give us pause.  As I have previously said, the undifferentiated group of cells will never be a puppy, a kitten, an earthworm, or a rat. It is destined to be a human child.

would just like to point out that crosspatch isn't really so out of place.

if you have a little "batfink" in your own makeup. Do you really believe that I am an ignorant, uneducated, bio-science-challenged hick, and that I cannot possibly understand this issue because of a lack of cognitive ability or bio-science aptitude?

The question is simply ethics vs. unfettered research for the common good. If you consider ethics questions to be little more than unavoidable complications, in deference to religious fanaticism, then I suppose you are right. The discussion is rather pointless.

A show of hands: how many think the following statements by Mitt Romney qualify him to be characterized as "pro-life"...you know, in the same sense pro-lifers mean when they call themselves "pro-life"...

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

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

Romney 1994 U.S. Senate debate: "I believe that abortion should be SAFE AND LEGAL in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should SUSTAIN AND SUPPORT it, and I sustain and support that law and the RIGHT of a woman to make that CHOICE."

Is that he has HIS OWN personal beliefs but feels no need to impose his personal beliefs on others.  While I will bet he WISHED others would share his beliefs and values, he doesn't feel a need to enforce his beliefs and values on other people.

You seem to be saying that he isn't a conservative because he wouldn't force other people to abide by his personal value system and codify his beliefs in law.  I disagree.  What makes a conservative is what you yourself would do and what you yourself believe.  It isn't that you would force others to live by your beliefs and values.  There are other words for that kind of thing.

Now that you posted that, my respect for Mitt went up and maybe now I understand why the people of Mass. elected him.

Is that he has HIS OWN personal beliefs but feels no need to impose his personal beliefs on others.  While I will bet he WISHED others would share his beliefs and values, he doesn't feel a need to enforce his beliefs and values on other people.

There is only one justification for being "personally" pro-life, and that is that abortion represents the unjust taking of a human life. To hold that position, while simultaneously holding the position that the government ought not intervene in the aforementioned unjust taking of human life is not conserative, or even libertarian (as I'm sure you imagine that it is). It's anarchist.

Or "Catholic" Democrat. Whichever.

Look, Mitt's abortion stance has been covered at length on these boards. In 2002, his clearly and publicly stated stance was that he was personally pro-life but effectively tabled the issue, knowing he couldn't get any aborion legislation passed with an 85% democratic legislature anyways, and told the people of MA that abortion laws wouldn't change under his leadership.

It was a brilliant political move that won him the governorship and the chance to fix what was wrong with MA, which he effectively did. His website quote and his Planned Parenthood questionnaire are both in line with that stated stance and don't make him pro-life. They make him a man of his word.

Since that time, his position has "evolved and changed" because of the stem cell debate. Having always been pro-life, he now recognized the need to pursue that in public policy as well.

For example.  I might be of a certain religion and my faith has a set of values.  Am I right enforcing the values of my faith on others?  To quote from Matthew:

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

So while I might find the narrow gate, does it do any good to lock the wide one and force everyone else through that narrow gate?  Have I made what is in their heart any different or have I just forced people to use a certain gate because I would want them to?  You can't enforce righteousness in law.  You can force people to go through motions but you can't force them to believe.  You have to do that in a different way.  You have to do that by personal example, by teaching your children your values, and by a community adopting a set of values or a faith that holds those values because they want to.  You can't legislate morality, doing so makes people resentful and causes them to close their minds to what you would try to show them.

Enforcing one set of values is no different than enforcing a different one.  Fundamentally, the case against choice is religious.  What if a Buddhist American doesn't share your specific values? Would you drag them to the narrow gate and throw them through it just to make you feel better?  Have you really done any good?

There's more than one one-trick pony in this discussion.

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

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

That's not "I'm tabling this discussion because of the Donks." It's not even close.

I know AFA Michigan seems to run on a single track, but you're not doing Romney or yourself any favors by buying in to one of the most obvious pander jobs in political history.

to Romney stating Roe v Wade is settled law. A quick Google search didn't come up with anything.

What it did come up with, however, was a whole bunch of times Romney stated that abortion ought to be for every state to decide on its own. Recently on PBS, he stated he did want to see Roe v Wade overturned and did a brilliant job of explaining why - something not many politicians are doing at this point in the game.

You have to accept that the wrong path is available and that many will take it.  It doesn't mean that you have to and it doesn't mean you can really take that wrong path away.  All through the Bible we are told that what is wrong is always an option and all through time man would try to force his neighbor to act in a pious manner but actions don't matter so much as what is in the heart and you can not own another's heart as dictator, you can only own their actions. And in so doing, you are ultimately pleasing only yourself by seeing actions that please you, God is interested in the heart ...which you have no control over.

1. I'm grumpy from spending the whole day reading stuff that drives me nuts, so don't take anything herein personally.
   
2. I've responded to this particular line of claptrap about 1,041 times, so don't take anything herein personally.

For example.  I might be of a certain religion and my faith has a set of values.  Am I right enforcing the values of my faith on others?

Who, at any time, said anything about religion or faith? We're discussing whether abortion is the unjust taking of a human life - why in the world are you hauling out Matthew 7 on me?

Actually, I do know, it sounds facially pretty reasonable when Kerry says it - "I personally believe that life begins at conception, but I can't legislate my faith on others," but it's still overripe nonsense either way. I believe that life begins at conception because my biology textbook tells me that an embryo satisfies every test for being a living organism, Kerry believes it because he's a "Catholic," whatever. How one comes to the point of a particular belief is absolutely irrelevant, what matters is that the belief is. In fact, the only area in which this tired canard gets dragged out anymore is abortion, because "Catholic" Democrats like to soothe their conscience.

For instance, let's take Social Security. I might think that it should be privatized because it provides a greater rate of return on the investment - someone else might think it should be privatized because SS is an unconstitutional program, while yet a third person might think it should be privatized based on some bizarre reading of Matthew 15 (trust me, I've heard it). Under your logic, the third guy can't even participate in this debate - or if he does, he's required to cast his vote for the other side. It's lunacy.

But no less lunacy than this:

You can't legislate morality, doing so makes people resentful and causes them to close their minds to what you would try to show them.

As I have said before: The vast majority of the criminal law is the legislation of moral judgments. Laws against murder reflect a moral judgment on the worth of human life. Laws against theft and trespass reflect a moral judgment on the sanctity of property. Different societies (ones that are either Communist, or Eastern, or both), will legislate this morality in very different ways. To say that society should not legislate morality is to say that society should not have criminal law - which is patently absurd.

We're not talking "legislating morality" in the sense that we're legislating everyone goes to church, we're talking "legislating morality" in the sense that it's immoral to kill other humans. Even your staunchest 'Toid will grant that's a legitimate function of government.

Enforcing one set of values is no different than enforcing a different one.  Fundamentally, the case against choice is religious.  What if a Buddhist American doesn't share your specific values?

That's what we have ballot boxes for.

Would you drag them to the narrow gate and throw them through it just to make you feel better?

I could care less about the government dragging anybody through any gates, I'd just rather they did something to stop people from dragging the dismembered parts of their children out of their uteruses (uteri?).

Have you really done any good?

There's about 1.2 million people a year we could ask, but they're not around for some reason.

that I have nothing but respect for. As such, your admonishment(s) are duly noted.

As I said in an earlier diary, it's up to each one of us to determine whether or not Romney is simply pandering (or worse, flip flopping), or whether his convictions have indeed "evolved and deepened" as he says.

Guess I just got caught up in all the Romney-craze from the slew of recent Mitt-related diaries lately. I'll back off the debate for awhile!

All through the Bible we are told that what is wrong is always an option and all through time man would try to force his neighbor to act in a pious manner

As soon as you see me advocating a position like this, you be sure and let me know.

but actions don't matter so much as what is in the heart

The Anglo-American criminal law of the last 700 years or so disagrees with you.

and you can not own another's heart as dictator, you can only own their actions.

This is next door to nonsensical, but as we're apparently now in agreement that actions matter, I'll agree. As long as their actions don't include killing their kids, we're cool.

At uniting America because he focused on the values that unite us, not the values that divide us.  He accepted that America was composed of a broad spectrum of political thought and he told us that we were still okay anyway.  He told us that this diversity of opinion was a good thing, that America was fundamentally a good place and Americans a good people. When all was said an done we wanted a better life for our kids and a safe place to raise them and a job for them when they entered the workforce.  He told us that there is more that binds us together than separates us.

America responded to that and united behind him.  Many times he quoted Roosevelt in wanting the "best possible batting average" when it came to his agenda.  He was willing to bend to get a hit, even if he didn't hit a home run every time and little by little he got what he wanted.

The notion that only some rigid set of criteria is acceptable is divisive.  It concentrates on how we are different, not on how we are the same.  I am not a perfect conservative. I am a Republican.  I am pragmatic when I need to be. I also believe that America is the last best hope for freedom in this world.  We aren't perfect and our country isn't perfect but overall what we all want is what is good.  We just have different ideas on exactly how that manifests.

Still, I believe there is a lot of mileage to be gotten out of the Reagan concept of inclusion.  A California Republican learns that, I suppose.

Myself, I'm trying to avoid the primary discussions because I'm singularly unenthused about the whole crop.

Guess I just got caught up in all the Romney-craze from the slew of recent Mitt-related diaries lately.

I've noticed this slew, too. At the moment, I'm trying to decide if they're generated by his campaign (smart) or if it represents some kind of genuine groundswell. Either way, right now Romney's got something going for him that the rest of the candidates don't right now, and that's online activists.

Of course, that hasn't meant diddly squat for any Democrat in the last three elections, but Republicans have had some moderate success through that avenue. We'll see.

As I said in an earlier diary, it's up to each one of us to determine whether or not Romney is simply pandering (or worse, flip flopping).

I'd prefer flip-flopping, as long as I could be confident that he wouldn't pull the ever-difficult Frist-Flip-Flop-Flip maneuver. As it is, a panderer is likely to not care whatsoever about the issue come nomination time. That way lies Souter.

Sorry for the bite, I'm grumpy tonight.

Who, at any time, said anything about religion or faith? We're discussing whether abortion is the unjust taking of a human life - why in the world are you hauling out Matthew 7 on me?

Life vs. choice has been a religious discussion. At least it has been for people shooting abortion doctors, blowing up clinics, disrupting operations, and generally being outspoken on the issue.

If you take any religion out of it, then it becomes a matter of personal opinion.  If you are going from the personal opinion angle then I say you are simply wanting to enforce your opinion on the rest of the population and that bothers me.  I have my opinions too, but I don't feel a need to enforce them on everyone else.

I am getting tired too and I might be getting lazy and jumping to conclusions.

I'm an evangelist at heart - so I do what I can as an individual to try and spread the Good News, if you catch my drift. I'm very conscious, however, that I don't need or want the government helping me out in that job.

However, the abortion question has nothing to do with this. The question is whether abortion represents the unjust taking of human life. If the answer is "no" (ergo, you are "personally pro-choice") then not only does government have no business intruding on the decision, but also it's not immoral in any sense of the word. If the answer is "yes," then it is correct to say that the action is immoral - much like any other unjust taking of a human life (or stealing, or what have you.) However, because it is the unjust taking of a human life, we've moved on over from "Hey, brother, Jesus wants to save you," into "Hey, policeman, that woman is about to kill her child."

Comprend&eacute?

I'm going to bed.

If you take any religion out of it, then it becomes a matter of personal opinion.  If you are going from the personal opinion angle then I say you are simply wanting to enforce your opinion on the rest of the population and that bothers me.  I have my opinions too, but I don't feel a need to enforce them on everyone else.

It's almost like the only reason we have elections is so that we can choose the candidates whose hair will look best on television. Not, you know, so that they can put our opinions on how government ought to work into practice.

I can see why you're a Romney fan.

  I see a real limited set of viewpoints here - not overtly stated, but Evangelical Christian, and the sort who are so fragile that they can't stand interaction with someone who isn't involved in affirmation of their beliefs ... or Evangelical Conspiracy theorist, knowing that anyone who isn't fully agreeing with them is a communist homosexual terrorists NAFTA weasel ... or some other flavors of peculiar I'm not yet able to skewer correctly.

  If this is really the face of the Republican party it just affirms my volunteering to work on a Democrat's campaign. Lets recall my demographics - white, middle aged, rural upbringing, gun owner, and I hit all of the little red levers for the 2000 election with one hand while the other covered my ears to keep out the sound of Bill Clinton's zipper going up and down. Straight as a string, I am, but I'd take ol' Slick Willy's zipper down with my teeth if it'd undo Bush's poorly conceived and poorly executed adventure in Iraq.

The supreme court says that a person, up to a point, has a consitutional right to engage have that procedure done.  It wasn't a law that was passed, it was an interpretation of the existing constitution.

Personnaly, I don't believe it should be used as a way out of irresponsible behavior but at the same time, when one is in that situation, there you are.  It is a difficult judgement call that I will never have to make because I am a man.  But if it were my daughter, it would be an extremely agonizing process for me.  If she were in a bad way, not married, maybe in college ... it would be hard.  I would think I would have taught her responsible alternatives (for example, there is no way she would ever go without birth control for lack of funds as long as I am able to afford it).  But sometimes things just happen and there you are.  I would want that option available to her if that is what she decided she wanted and I would support her in whatever decision she made.

But we are all different in many ways.  I guess it all boils down to the fact that I don't want you (and I don't mean you personally) dictating my daughters choices to her.  It would be bad enough as it was.

I haven't decided who I would support.  I am probably leaning toward Rudy at this point but I have problems with his gun control stance.

this is an argument in which pro-choice people and pro-life people can only talk past each other.  unless you can convince someone that a fetus is not actually a person or they can convince you that it is, you might as well both just give up.

I don't want you (and I don't mean you personally) dictating my daughters choices to her.

as far as a pro-life person is concerned, the government is "dictating" a choice to your daughter in the same way that the government "dictates" a choice to me when it says i can't kill my neighbor.

i don't agree with this view, but there you go.  until you can convince them that aborting a fetus is not the same thing as killing a person, all your pro-choice arguments are meaningless.

Yup, another one of those issues. A divisive issue, actually.  Very emotional too.

Actually, I do know, it sounds facially pretty reasonable when Kerry says it - "I personally believe that life begins at conception, but I can't legislate my faith on others," but it's still overripe nonsense either way.

hey, something we can agree on.  this is a retarded argument.

the real argument is that we, as a society, constantly make decisions that balance life, money, convenience and personal freedom.  factories release some harmful chemicals into the atmosphere because it would be prohibitively expensive to avoid it.  people are allowed to drive hummers, even though they are statistically more likely to kill someone if involved in an accident.  some people live in extravagant wealth while children starve to death in other countries.  poor people get crappy medical treatment.  innocent people die in wars.

we recognize that "sanctity of life" isn't the end of the argument.  it gets a lot of weight, but in the end, other considerations must also be taken into the balance.  

and just to be perfectly clear, i don't mean this as an attack on your morality or republican morality or as some kind of hypocricy gotcha.  different people disagree on what tradeoffs to make and at what levels to make them, but i think that pretty much everyone recognizes that these types of tradeoffs are necessary.

The question that gets asked of conservative judges is, "Is Roe settled law?"  That's because the left wants it to be.

The term "settled" means just that.  It has been settled, and needs no more settling.

Heavy, please identify ANY politician -- Republican, Democrat, or in between -- who says they're "personally" FOR abortion.

Pro-lifers couldn't care less what some politician's "personal" views are.  They're irrelevant.  The only thing we judge is the politician's public policy views.

Anybody who hasn't lived in a cave somewhere for the last 33 years recognizes the rhetoric and terminology used by those who as a matter of public policy support legal abortion on demand vs. those who believe in an inherent human Right to Life.

Here's a hint for the apparently clueless. The following are terms used by those who support legal abortion on demand:

"abortion rights"

"pro-choice"

"free to choose"

"a woman's right to choose"

"safe and legal"

"sustain and support" Roe v. Wade

"the right of a woman to make that choice"

All of the above are taken from Mitt Romney's public campaign statements.

A "brilliant political move"?  Yeah, that's what we're looking for...someone so brilliantly devoid of core principles that he'll argue exactly the opposite of what he claims to "personally" believe, then asks us to believe that since he's still in his formative years at the impressionable young age of 59, he's suddenly "evolved."

Religious conservatives who dominate the GOP primary process, as a rule, don't buy into that "evolution" stuff.

And you're right. I'm saying that anyone  

Let's make it simple.

If Governor Romney and Speaker Gingrich are two of a kind, then I think it's a pretty bold move to position yourself AGAINST the architect of the Contract with America, and succeeding control of the House of Representatives.

The first Republican House Speaker since the Eisenhower administration carries more weight with most Republicans, I think, than a few anonymous Romney-bashers.

So be prepared to lose, and lose big, if Gingrich does come out for Romney.

Even if Newt comes out for Romney it will not change the argument because the issues will not change. Yes I am sure a Newt endorsement will help persuade some fence sitters but it won't persuade people who want real conservative leadership. An anti-gun, politically pro-choice, big spender is not the kind of leader the Republican Party needs in 08'.

When Roberts (since you bring up judges) was giving testimony prior to his appointment on the circuit court, he said:

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent, as well as Casey."

Furthermore, when he was giving testimony in his recent nomination to SCOTUS, he was very careful to NOT say anything about Roe being immune from overturning.  Roe would benefit from stare decisis as would any court decision, but it is not immune.  

True, in the case of Roe the left wants "settled" to mean "immune to overturning".  But the right wants "settled" to mean nothing more than "that's the law, it's been challenged, and it is still currently the law".

That's why I think it matters so much how Romney meant the term, and why that simple sentence "Roe is settled law" doesn't really tell me much.  

Will three get me the Triple Crown?

Thought all the cute "one trick pony" posters would enjoy some "diversity":

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2006/june/0613_mpa_mccain.shtml