Yes, but being “pro-life” by Massachusetts standards may not be the same as, for example, being “pro-life” by Texan standards.
He has a record as governor of being pro life from 2003 - 2007. That shows sincerity.
Again, it depends on your measure of “pro-life.” Did he enforce any abortion restrictions? Last I checked they were still doing abortions in Massachusetts. Just saying.
History tells us that a third party vote goes for naught and in this case, it helps Obama just as it helped Clinton.
Exactly. I would vote for Romney, Gingrich or Paul. None of them are perfect, but they are all preferable to Obama. I voted Perot and helped Clinton take office. I won’t make the same mistake again.
I have no intentions of offending anyone when I say its naive to believe everything Romney says, at least not in the same sense as those who use other words and empty rhetoric against Ron Paul. There is a reason that every political pundit in the world points out that Romney is a habitual flip flopper, not just for information, but as a warning.
I disagree with you, and you misquoted yourself.
As a conservative, I don’t believe “everything” a politician says, but to say people are “extremely naive” to believe anything a given politician says is extreme.
Many of my friends voted for Ross Perot … “to send them a message” … and what they got was their worst nightmare … Bill Clinton.
Since I don’t believe “nothing” will get done, only very little, I am a big fan of gridlock. The less the federal government does, the better.
If you have to make up words like “anti-anti-Obama” your argument is weak. In this case it just begs the question of whether a third party vote is a vote for Obama. There are some Republican candidates (one in particular) I do not think I will vote for. In that case, a vote for a third party is a vote taken from the Obama column (as well as the Republican column).
This is what I like about Newt, and what concerns me about Romney. Newt, for all his weaknesses (and there are many) still tells it like it is and isn’t afraid to call Obama a socialist. Newt is perhaps the only candidate who could effectively explain to America why Obama is a socialist. Let us hope that what Gingrich predicts comes to fruition.
You don’t. But its a risk worth taking. He is a politician - f he reneged and nominated a moderate Supreme court justice he would never get re-elected. And trust me, he would want to get re-elected.
bbarick, wha happened? You used to criticize liberals who said in defense of their votes for Democrats that “abortion isn’t the only issue.” Like I said, he is at worst a politician who isn’t a committed pro-lifer. He would still give us good justices. At best he is sincere, in which case he would still give us good justices. The other issues matter too - getting the economy back on track, keeping our defenses strong, etc. But they pale incomparison to the issue of the sanctity of life.
I’m with you on that. This government was built on the Roman checks and balance principle. That said, we should dissolve the Fed and make the Constitution easier to amend. SCOTUS has too much power, IMO.
You all really need to read on the Warren Court…no president can control a justice once appointed…they are there for life.
I meant if abortion were the only issue he has flip flopped on.
rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/05/buddy-roemer-highlights-romneys-flip-flop-on-campaign-finance-reform/
Fair point but nominating SCOTUS justices is another matter. You don’t know how they will turn out. After all, it was Nixon’s SCOTUS which made Roe-Wade the law of the land. And even Bush, the supposedly pro-life president, nominated “moderate” Harriet Miers, who fortunately later withdrew her name for consideration. Whereas JFK nominated one of the dissenters of the Roe-Wade decision. But Nixon’s court did the damage. Then one doesn’t know if the movement would have had any impetus had Reagan not signed the pro-abortion bill while he was governor of California in 1967.