Friday, September 16, 2011

Comment / Rave on Mitt Romney's Waffling on Abortion and "Articulate" Republican Nominees

 I put up a post on Facebook that linked to a long page documenting Mitt Romney's disturbing record on abortion. One person defended Romney as "articulate" and "smart and quick on his feet" (as opposed to Republicans who are not) and I made the following spontaneous response:

* * *

Someone with a history of being so avidly pro-abortion is suspect. Perhaps he has had a real change of heart, but even if so, I wouldn't trust such a man to be vigorously in favor of the sort of pro-life legislation that we need: tough measures to insure the protection of the children. We don't want another Souter on the Court, or even another Kennedy (whom Reagan appointed). It's very difficult to find a good Justice to put in. We managed to get Roberts and Alito. I don't believe that Romney would appoint such men.

If Romney appointed someone like himself (seems likely and plausible to me): a waffler and one who traditionally could not see that abortion is wrong, then such a person would not vote to overturn Roe or even alter it to any significant degree. He would do the bidding of the pro-aborts, just as Justice Kennedy (a Catholic!) often has.

This is all about the liberal media's desire to get Romney nominated because he is moderate enough that folks won't see much difference between him and Obama (Huntsman gets the same treatment, but he is a non-factor); thus giving the latter a better chance to be re-elected. One doesn't hear Romney being run down; it's all about Perry and Bachmann being wild-eyed extreme fundamentalists.

That's the dead give-away. If a Republican is absolutely despised, mocked, detested, called all kinds of names by our superior liberal masters and overlords, then you know you have the right person. Apologetics works the same way! [LOL] Find someone who is being called all kinds of names by the anti-Catholics, and you have someone who (chances are) is being an effective and successful defender of the faith. No names . . . :-) :-)

Same thing happened to Reagan, Gingrich (back in the mid-90s), Bork, Clarence Thomas, Rumsfeld, Cheney, W.: anyone who opposes the liberal status quo.

I couldn't care less than I do how "articulate" a candidate is. He can stumble all over his words and wear a dunce cap, as long as he does the right things and puts in place good policy. Obama is extremely articulate and likable to boot. But what good is that? Where has it gotten the country? So he looks good on camera and makes a great personal impression . . . so what!!!??

Joe Biden is not very "articulate", but Obama saw him as a great VP choice. Dick Cheney is extremely articulate and intelligent, yet did that make any difference in the liberals' opinion of him? Nope, of course not. Republicans are attacked and pilloried no matter what. Colin Powell was so "articulate" that he was stupid enough to vote for Obama.

Obama is so "articulate" that he didn't even know that the word "corpsman" had a silent "p". Imagine if W had said that? But W didn't say anything nearly that dumb . . .

I don't think Romney will be the nominee, because stuff like this is gonna come out, and the base won't put up with it. Perry is likely gonna be The Man. I like Bachmann better, but polls are clear that she is not as electable as Perry is, and you have to go back to Garfield, I think, to find a President elected from the House. Being a woman is not an issue; we have gotten beyond that now.



Dan Marcum said...

You make some very good points. I think we can trust that Romney has had a true change of heart, and will act as pro-life as anyone else on many things, but here's a telling factor: in the Palmetto Freedom Forum debate, all the candidates were asked if they would use the 14th amendment to protect life -- it says that no state shall kill any person or fail to give equal protection of the law to any person. And that Congress shall have power to enforce this. What was Romney's answer? He said, no, I won't use that power to protect life, or encourage Congress to do so; instead, I will take away federal legislation about abortion, and thus allow the states to do whatever they want about the issue.

Sorry, but that's not what the 14th amendment says: it says no state shall kill anyone, or fail to protect anyone from being killed without due process. Bachmann, Santorum, Herman Cain and the others all said they would protect life by this measure. Romney and Paul said it should be a "state issue," and leave it up to others whether the unborn should be killed. Sorry, not good enough for me.

I like Herman Cain at this point, though his stance on immigration needs work.

Nick said...

It's good to see the blog pictures are back up and running.

I totally agree that someone who avidly supported abortion (and gay marriage) in the past is totally suspect; there are YouTube clips of him debating Ted Kennedy and trying to be more liberal than him. It's right out of the politicians playbook to change with the times.

As for the 'test' to see who the Liberal media trashes and ignores the most, I agree that is a very good test and applies to lots of venues. However, in this case, Perry and Bachmann are still getting decent press...the person being utterly ignored and tarnished is Ron Paul. Paul is truly the most constitutional, most genuine and informed in his responses, and most consistent history. That doesn't automatically make him the best, but it says a lot, esp the way he is utterly ignored (as this humorous clip of the Daily Show demonstrates).

Dave Armstrong said...

It is his extreme isolationism that gives him the "wacko" media image. It is irrelevant if Iran gets the nuclear bomb, etc.

Nick said...

What do you mean by extreme isolationism? I know he wants us to be seen as less of the 'police of the world' and less entangled in the affairs of others (point out how we'd been mad if other nations had their agendas tangled up in our lives). I'm not sure how far one must go to be considered 'extreme' here, but some degree of 'isolationism' (an unfortunate term) is clearly a good thing. I cannot imagine the expenditures being paid to help this or that nation when we're ultimately having to foot the bill and get the short end of the stick in terms of wages and jobs.

I've not heard him say it's no big deal if Iran gets nucs, because that's not something to take lightly.

Micha Elyi said...

Being a woman is not an issue; we have gotten beyond that now.

I disagree.

"We" will have gotten beyond the issue of whether or not a woman is qualified to be President when every woman is subject to draft registration (and the draft when it is activated) just as men are. Think about it.

Dave Armstrong said...

I've not heard him say it's no big deal if Iran gets nucs, because that's not something to take lightly.

That was in one of the debates. Rick Santorum and him were going back and forth about that.

Extreme isolationism is thinking we ought not hardly ever intervene in foreign affairs. That was a big view in the 30s before Hitler got going.

Maroun said...

i Just hate the expression (pro choice ) which is nothing else but pro death . It`s like saying , i wouldnt kill my own baby but if someone else wants to do it , then they are free to do so.
Since when we are free to kill another person and especialy the innocent ones like our own babies?

Dave Armstrong said...

You're exactly right. I refuse to use it. I always say "pro-abortion."