Mitt Romney

[heartofgold]

I would, simply because he's the only conservative Republican who has a chance. I think the fact that he's a Mormon is a good thing, since they tend to be very decent honorable people no matter what they believe.

[nella]

Well, my two cents is that people worried about JFK because he was a Catholic and people thought he would try to please the Vatican. I don't really think that happened or America was effected to much by his religion. I might vote for him, but I won't be able to vote, so I guess I don't have to decide yet. I don't know much about his politics. If he is pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and takes a biblical stance on issues like that, I might consider voting for him, but I am not educated enough at this point to discern that.

[gynovia]

I don't know much about him.

[heartofgold]

Gee, and I thought I didn't read the news

[Armany]

Romney isn't a true conservative. He's positioned himself as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate in the past (as recently as 2002, I believe, when he was running for Massachusetts governor). He's simply cuddling up to the conservative elements in the Republican party in an effort to get the nomination. His Mormon religion has nothing to do with flip-flopping on the social issues. (See: www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/romney.abortion.ap/index.html. There was a better link but it's been deleted off the site.)

Think Romney is a conservative Republican? Think again.

[heartofgold]

armany said:

Romney isn't a true conservative. He's positioned himself as a pro-choice, pro-gay rights candidate in the past (as recently as 2002, I believe, when he was running for Massachusetts governor). He's simply cuddling up to the conservative elements in the Republican party in an effort to get the nomination. His Mormon religion has nothing to do with flip-flopping on the social issues. (See: www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/romney.abortion.ap/index.html. There was a better link but it's been deleted off the site.)

Think Romney is a conservative Republican? Think again.

Yea, I've heard this before. I'm not buying it. John Kerry flip-flopped. He changed his position on everything 3 or 4 times. Mitt Romney changed his position on this issue once, after claiming he talked with a researcher about the issue. His spokesperson saying thus (quoted from the article):

"Governor Romney's personal experience with a family member impacted his view of the subject 15 years ago, but in grappling with the issue as an elected governor, he reconsidered the issue. That brought him to a personal decision and public policy decision where he felt it was important to protect the sanctity of life,"

and so far, I'm gonna buy it. Now obviously, if he suddenly becomes a democrat and changes again, then we'll know. But he's only done it once, and frankly, he does sound heartfelt.

Plus its either him or McCain (or Giuliani )

[Armany]

We're talking about a guy that was the governor of Massachusetts, a very liberal state. Under his watch, the state legalized same-sex marriage. Maybe he says he wasn't in favor of it, but the fact that he was able to get elected in such a state proves that he's done some political posturing in the past and has flip-flopped on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Such posturing is evident in his past position as a gay rights champion (NY Times article). He is cited in a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay Republicans, that America "must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” Such posturing is also evident in his sudden 'change of heart' on abortion. I don't buy this story, when so much is at stake (the GOP nomination) and politics is all about media image and posturing. He's moving to the right to try to win votes, just as any candidate that hopes to win the nomination will do.

Former governor of one of the nation's most liberal states..."former" pro-choice candidate..."former" candidate pushing for gay rights and equality? As Patrick Henry once said, "I smell a rat." And something behind Romney's recent conservative conversion smells as well.

[heartofgold]

armany said:

We're talking about a guy that was the governor of Massachusetts, a very liberal state. Under his watch, the state legalized same-sex marriage. Maybe he says he wasn't in favor of it, but the fact that he was able to get elected in such a state proves that he's done some political posturing in the past and has flip-flopped on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc.

Such posturing is evident in his past position as a gay rights champion (NY Times article). He is cited in a 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay Republicans, that America "must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” Such posturing is also evident in his sudden 'change of heart' on abortion. I don't buy this story, when so much is at stake (the GOP nomination) and politics is all about media image and posturing. He's moving to the right to try to win votes, just as any candidate that hopes to win the nomination will do.

Former governor of one of the nation's most liberal states..."former" pro-choice candidate..."former" candidate pushing for gay rights and equality? As Patrick Henry once said, "I smell a rat." And something behind Romney's recent conservative conversion smells as well.

And I agree that he probably honestly and wholeheartedly agreed with the gay rights groups. All I'm saying is I think he changed like he said. I see no reason to condemn a move like this as lies and flip-flopping. Lets stick with innocent until proven guilty. Like I said the fact that he's only done it once counts greatly in his favor. If he had changed position many times then we'd have some concerns. But for now I'll stick with his story.

Oh, and your obsession with Patrick Henry's quote is fascinating (second time you used it). Was he an ancestor of yours or something ;D?

[New Titania (TD)]

Personally, I like the guy. He's a very good communicator, and I think he's got a big shot. He could defeat Clinton, Obama, or Edwards in the General.

Let's look at history here: Ronald Reagan was governor of California, which was a liberal (not AS liberal as it is today...but liberal) state. He supported abortion. He later came out against it and became one of the best presidents ever. I'm going to give Mitt Romney a chance to convince me that he's truly changed.

[Armany]

heartofgold said:

And I agree that he probably honestly and wholeheartedly agreed with the gay rights groups. All I'm saying is I think he changed like he said. I see no reason to condemn a move like this as lies and flip-flopping. Lets stick with innocent until proven guilty. Like I said the fact that he's only done it once counts greatly in his favor. If he had changed position many times then we'd have some concerns. But for now I'll stick with his story.

Oh, and your obsession with Patrick Henry's quote is fascinating (second time you used it). Was he an ancestor of yours or something ;D?

LOL No, no relation whatsoever. When did I use the Patrick Henry quote before? I'm glad I was able to fascinate you. ;D

If you really trust a politician in his supposed "conversion," then that's great. I've seen too many empty promises and political posturing to believe that, though. Maybe it's just because I'm disillusioned with our nation's current political state, but I take the campaign messages, promises, and positions of these guys with (or as? Not sure how that phrase goes...) a grain of salt.

[Armany]

td said:

Personally, I like the guy. He's a very good communicator, and I think he's got a big shot. He could defeat Clinton, Obama, or Edwards in the General.

Let's look at history here: Ronald Reagan was governor of California, which was a liberal (not AS liberal as it is today...but liberal) state. He supported abortion. He later came out against it and became one of the best presidents ever. I'm going to give Mitt Romney a chance to convince me that he's truly changed.

Romney and Reagan? Let's indeed look at history:

Reagan was once a Democrat and later switched parties--so that's a fair comparison. However, I don't recall Reagan ever being a firebrand for socialism or anything--an issue which, in his day, was tantamount in importance to our current struggles over abortion and gay marriage. Also, I'd like some proof that Reagan was pro-abortion, because I've never heard that--I may be ignorant on that, however. When we look at Romney, however, we can see rather liberal positions on these issues--Romney ran as a pro-choice candidate repeatedly and also tried to portray himself as a gay-rights candidate. Also of note is that Reagan's conversion to the Republican party came in 1962--14 years before he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976. Reagan's conversion was far more concrete than Romney's supposed "conversion," which has only lasted since just recently and oddly enough coincides with the informal beginning of the 2008 election buzz.

I think that there is, among Christian conservatives, an almost mechanical tendency to support whichever candidate pays lip service to the right. You yourself, TD, just said that Reagan was "one of the best presidents ever"--this even though Reagan lied about the Iran-Contra affair and increased the national debt while saying that 'big government is the problem.' You'd probably also say that Bush is a great President--even though he has either lied or been pretty ignorant about WMD's in Iraq and has accomplished basically nothing in regards to abortion or other social issues of pertinence. My point is, we as Christian conservatives tend to endorse the candidates that 'say the right things' on certain issues, even though their past or present actions suggest otherwise.

Will Romney be yet another candidate who can successfully cater the votes of the religious right before he's elected, yet then leave many promises unfulfilled when President? I certainly hope not. I don't especially like any of the Republican candidates this election, so I'm not just hating on Romney, but I do feel that he's simply making a move to the right before the primaries. That's what all Republican presidential hopefuls must do to win the nomination.

[heartofgold]

If you really trust a politician in his supposed "conversion," then that's great. I've seen too many empty promises and political posturing to believe that, though. Maybe it's just because I'm disillusioned with our nation's current political state, but I take the campaign messages, promises, and positions of these guys with (or as? Not sure how that phrase goes...) a grain of salt.

True, but a couple of things make me think he's sincere. Once again, the fact that he's only one it once in his fairly long career. Second, the fact that he at least claims he's a Mormon (if he isn't a very devout he wouldn't be claiming to be one, since its not helping in the polls). Frankly, I trust the fact that they're usually honorable people. He just doesn't sound like the type of guy who goes where the wind blows.

Reagan was once a Democrat and later switched parties--so that's a fair comparison. However, I don't recall Reagan ever being a firebrand for socialism or anything--an issue which, in his day, was tantamount in importance to our current struggles over abortion and gay marriage. Also, I'd like some proof that Reagan was pro-abortion, because I've never heard that--I may be ignorant on that, however. When we look at Romney, however, we can see rather liberal positions on these issues--Romney ran as a pro-choice candidate repeatedly and also tried to portray himself as a gay-rights candidate. Also of note is that Reagan's conversion to the Republican party came in 1962--14 years before he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1976. Reagan's conversion was far more concrete than Romney's supposed "conversion," which has only lasted since just recently and oddly enough coincides with the informal beginning of the 2008 election buzz.

Actually you have a fair point. Reagen was closer to a moderate when the left started losing its mind, that's when he switched. Democrat used to mean something respectable, when it quit meaning that, Reagen switched (that's where his "...the party left me" speech came in; note, I'm pretty sure he was the first person to use that line, but I'm not sure about that ;D).
However, that didn't make his conversion any more concrete when he did it than Romney's. I think they both were/are sincere.
Anyway, I'm probably rambling about something I know nothing about, so I'll move on ;D.

I think that there is, among Christian conservatives, an almost mechanical tendency to support whichever candidate pays lip service to the right. You yourself, TD, just said that Reagan was "one of the best presidents ever"--this even though Reagan lied about the Iran-Contra affair and increased the national debt while saying that 'big government is the problem.' You'd probably also say that Bush is a great President--even though he has either lied or been pretty ignorant about WMD's in Iraq and has accomplished basically nothing in regards to abortion or other social issues of pertinence. My point is, we as Christian conservatives tend to endorse the candidates that 'say the right things' on certain issues, even though their past or present actions suggest otherwise.

I wasn't alive during Iran-Contra, so I can't pretend to be an expert. However, I do think it was a bit overblown (it was probably the wrong thing to do, but I don't think it was as big a deal as everyone wanted it to be). Also, Reagen claimed he didn't know anything about it (I'm skeptical too, but I'll throw that out there anyway). But at least you can understand why it happened. I mean, "I did not have relations with that woman!" scandals are pretty bad, but this particular one, he sold arms in exchange for the release of hostages. Yea, the ends don't justify the means, and it probably shouldn't have happened, but at least there was some good logic behind it (still don't think it was a good thing though, don't get me wrong).

National debt though, he raised it to end the Cold War, seems like a fair trade to me. The fact that the economy did boom just softened the impact.

Bush had faulty intelligence, not much he could do about that. However, Saddam still was almost definitely trying to get WMD's. I still don't have any problem with having gone to Iraq, its how we went about trying to win that was pretty foolish.

Finally, I (unlike Sean Hannity the other day, "Somebody who is for abortion will actually do more against it then someone who opposes it!" ; TD, you worship Sean Hannity, tell me how that makes sense) quite frankly am going to vote (or would vote) for the guy who says the right things. Now, maybe he will turn out bad, but you've got a better shot then somebody who says that there actually liberals running as conservatives. He'll either do nothing (which isn't the worst case scenario), or he'll do what he says he going to do. You've got a better shot with that guy.

[Armany]

heartofgold said:

I wasn't alive during Iran-Contra, so I can't pretend to be an expert. However, I do think it was a bit overblown (it was probably the wrong thing to do, but I don't think it was as big a deal as everyone wanted it to be). Also, Reagen claimed he didn't know anything about it (I'm skeptical too, but I'll throw that out there anyway). But at least you can understand why it happened. I mean, "I did not have relations with that woman!" scandals are pretty bad, but this particular one, he sold arms in exchange for the release of hostages. Yea, the ends don't justify the means, and it probably shouldn't have happened, but at least there was some good logic behind it (still don't think it was a good thing though, don't get me wrong).

Nor was I alive at the time, but after recently reading a little for a class I'm in, I was able to surmise that he lied about the affair, saying he had no knowledge of it, then later admitted knowledge and involvement in it. My point was that TD's "greatest president ever" actually lied on a serious issue to the public.

National debt though, he raised it to end the Cold War, seems like a fair trade to me. The fact that the economy did boom just softened the impact.

However, Reagan was staunchly for a conservative version of government that flies in the face of having a huge national debt. Reagan told the American people that "big government was the problem," then did exactly the opposite. Sure, the economy may have done well, but Reagan effected that only by betraying his fiscal conservatism along the way. I don't really care all that much about this (I in fact like Reagan from what I hear of him) but the fact that he did an about-face on stuff like this makes me shy away from the idol-worship that goes on among Republicans (see TD's post ) over him.

Bush had faulty intelligence, not much he could do about that. However, Saddam still was almost definitely trying to get WMD's. I still don't have any problem with having gone to Iraq, its how we went about trying to win that was pretty foolish.

I too used to believe that Bush was genuine in his War on Iraq--that has been tempered, however, by my realization of all the corruption and conflicting interests that go on in DC. I really can't believe that a President would act on faulty intelligence with such naivety. He knew what the situation was, yet probably had some ulterior motives (which I won't discuss here--would open a whole 'nother can of worms) which at the very best made him see the intelligence that he wanted to see. My point here and with Reagan, however, is that maybe the conservative sweet-talkers aren't all they're cracked up to be.

Finally, I (unlike Sean Hannity the other day, "Somebody who is for abortion will actually do more against it then someone who opposes it!" ; TD, you worship Sean Hannity, tell me how that makes sense) quite frankly am going to vote (or would vote) for the guy who says the right things. Now, maybe he will turn out bad, but you've got a better shot then somebody who says that there actually liberals running as conservatives. He'll either do nothing (which isn't the worst case scenario), or he'll do what he says he going to do. You've got a better shot with that guy.

I don't trust the guys that say the right things. There is so much money (from interest groups that have considerable power and contribute heavily to campaigns) and politics (the pressure to get votes and win election) involved in this election, to the point that these "right things" you talk about are mere by-products of a desire to win and a reliance upon campaign donors.

I don't know who I'll vote for in the election (I believe I'll be eligible in '08). That decision will come later. However, right now, I'm not that enthused with any candidates. Mitt Romney's political posturing does not convince me that he's going to do any more than Bush has done in the White House.

Maybe I sound cynical. I just can't trust a poltician like Romney who has had a clearly liberal-to-moderate record on the issues. As your signature says, Heartofgold, "I'd rather be surprised as a pessimist than as an optimist." And I think it's a little too much optimism that's influencing peoples' opinions on Mitt Romney.