comMITTed to Romney!

For fellow conservatives considering Mitt for the first time, it’s important to understand Mitt’s staunch support of the pro-life platform.  The media has tried to downplay and negate Mitt’s position on this.  They’ve managed to stick a big old post-it note on Mitt’s forehead labelled “Flip Flopper” in permanent ink.  They’ve asserted that he lacks conviction.  They’re wrong.  As Governor, Mitt consistently stuck to conservative principles.  On abortion, marriage, health care, economy and other important issues, Mitt consistenly made conservative decisions.  For a great summary on Mitt’s real record, see Ann Marie’s post back in November 2007.

On Monday, the 35th anniversay of Roe v. Wade, Mitt once again committed to overturning this decision:

After 35 years of Roe v. Wade, we are again reminded why this decision should be overturned,” Romney said in a statement provided to LifeNews.com.

“We recognize the worth and dignity of every person, a fact that is ingrained in our hearts and etched in our national purpose,” Romney added. “Unelected judges should not be the final arbiters on these important decisions which define who we are as a people.”

Recently, Romney told Nevada voters that he wanted the high court to overturn the infamous decision allowing virtually unlimited abortions.

“I am pro-life, and I would welcome a time when the people of America concluded that abortion was wrong, but that’s not where America is, and that’s why I believe that the next right step for America is for the court to overturn Roe v. Wade,” he said then.

“That would return to the states and to the elected representatives of the people the ability to set their own laws related to abortion,” he said.

“Today, as Americans from across this country participate in the annual March for Life, my thoughts are with all those whose dedication and compassionate concern have done so much to educate and assist others in creating a genuine culture of life,” he said.

The last phrase is a very telling remark.  As he does with so many issues, Mitt is able to look at the broader implications and ramifications of following a certain path.  When he discusses his decision to become politically pro-life, Mitt often states that as Governor he realized that the effects of Roe v. Wade weren’t just limited to abortion.  They extended to issues like embryonic stem cell research and teenage pregnancy, and to the very basic fabric of our culture.  The question, “Are we a culture of life, or of death,” has strong ramifications for our children, their education, their government, their health, their society and their future.  Mitt understood (and has helped me understand) that the issue of abortion isn’t solely about choice or murder or rights - it’s about the kind of culture, society and country we are creating (or destroying) for the next generation.

If you are unsure about Mitt’s conviction on this or other social issues such as marriage, please DO NOT believe the picture the media has painted.  Please take a few minutes to visit Mitt’s site where he discusses his belief in “promoting a culture of life,” or visit the Encyclopedia Mittanica, where you can scroll down and find Mitt’s answers to just about any question, all neatly alphabetized according to issue. 

Warning:  if you take a few minutes to do this - to objectively look at Mitt’s platform and record, you WILL find he is a true Reagan conservative, and you WILL most likely want to join, sign up, contribute, campaign for, blog and in all other ways become a Mitt supporter!  Let us know when you do - we’d love to hear your story!

Share on Facebook

Share This

Mike Huckabee has every right to think that we should use tax-payer-money to give tuition breaks to the children of illegal immigrants. However, if he thinks compassion should be the overriding principal of his political philosophy, he should join the Democratic Party. Compassion may be a hyphenated word that is attached to words that describe our political policy, but it is not the focus of our political beliefs and actions. We add another word after the hyphen.

Republicans think that we should FOCUS our compassion on the poor people overseas who OBAY THE LAW, and come hear the right way. Some republicans believe in compassion, but a lot of republicans think there should be limits to politicians trying to be compassionate with other people’s money.

Republicans balance their compassion with an effort to reward good behavior and sometimes to punish bad behavior. We believe in tough love, and a compassion that looks at problem in a way that comprehends the big picture. Republicans believe that giving compassion when only seeing the short term may create dependency and destroy the character that makes long term prosperity possible. Like the song says, you “have to be cruel to be kind in the right measure”.

Huckabee has every right to think he should be compassionate, and give tuition breaks to children of illegal aliens, but he does not have a right to call himself a republican while he does it. The name of the “party of misplaced compassion” starts with a “D”.

Huckabee has every right to say that it was good of him to increase state spending 65.3% from 1996 to 2004, but he can’t say that was good and call himself a republican. We have a big tent, but we have strong stakes that support that tent, that can’t be bent.

Huchabee might have been right to increase the number of state government workers by 20% during his tenure (Arkansas Leader 04/15/2006). Democrats might be right. Maybe a big government is better than a small government, but why have two parties if both of them increase the size of government?

Romney on the other hand (along with others in the race) significantly decreased government workers in his state.

Huckabee  might have been right to have let the state’s debt to shoot up by almost $1 billion (according to Americans for tax Reform). Democrats might be right, perhaps you can spend more money than you have. We all know republicans haven’t done much better recently, but should we pick a guy that takes our hypocracy to a new level? Democrats might be right but why have two parties if one of them isn’t for balancing the budget? But he can’t make this argument as republican nominee. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Sure, there are some republicans who only care about abortion, and would vote for Huckabee over Hillary or Barak. But they are not a majority. For republicans to win we have to keep our coalition together. Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are no more likely to keep spending down in Washington, or keep taxes down than Mike Huckabee. Infact we have never seen Hillary or Barak increase taxes directly, or increase spending, but we have 8 years of Huckabee to prove what he would do.

So people in the republican party who don’t really care about abortion, who are just in the republican party because they believe in small government will have no reason to vote for a republican in 2008.

To some small government libertarians, they think a true small government shouldn’t be powerful enough to stop abortions, or prostitution. They think government should be so small that it lets people do whatever they want. But they have to decide if their desire for less government intrusion in value issues is more important, or if their desire for a less government spending is more important. They have to choose between the republican and democratic party.

People who want America to be on the offensive in the War in Terror will have no reason to support Huckabee who thinks Bush is arrogant. Huckabe also wants to close Guantanamo, and didn’t even know what the NIE report was. At least Hillary and Obama knew what the NIE report was.

But I’m hurting your feelings. I am disagreeing with you, and you are mad at me, because I am criticizing you guy. All you care about is that your candidate goes to a Christian church like Huckabee. You would never support someone like Fred Thompson that doesn’t go to church that often. You could also never vote for someone who is from a “cult”. You are right. People like you are an important part of the republican coalition, but you are not the only part of the party. You may represent a majority of the republican party, but you do not represent the majority of the American people. And so if you want to win, you have to find a winning coalition.

If you send up a guy like Huckabee, against Barak Obama, you will get every vote from value voters. But those whose main issues are the war on terrorism and small government, will have no reason to vote for your guy over the first african american or first woman president. Besides, for those republicans who belong to the republican party because of our it’s “arrogant mentality” or small government viewpoint, will be able to vote for the democrats, because at least that side will have to stop throwing hand-grenades, and acting like adults. They will get a chance to run things, and will have to act like adults, and do much the same things that they hate Bush for doing.

Social conservatives make up an important part of the republican party, but they are not the only part. Just ask Jimmy Carter who actually had the guts to stay in the party of compassion.

Go join Jimmy Carter’s political party Mike. I don’t want you in mine. Its not that I don’t like you. Its just that I think the republican party should stand for something. Its not that I’m saying your wrong. You might be right, but you are not a republican.

Or we can agree with the Democratic party on every issue but abortion and gay marriage? Is that what we want? Will we win when republicans are the same as democrats? But there is a more important question: Is it right to agree with democrats about increasing taxes, increasing the size of government, and defining compasion in such a way that rewards bad behavior, gives tax breaks to children of illiganl immigrants and lets 1,033 convicted criminals out of jail in 8 years from a small state?

Look, I’m exagerating to make a point. I really don’t want people like Huckabee or you to leave the republican party. We need you, but you have to remember that you need people like me. Don’t nominate Huckabee and offend those who care deeply about crime, and being too “compassionate” to convicted criminals. I know he speaks your language, and seems a lot like a guy you work with, and he plays the bass guitar great, and you think it would be great to have a former preacher as president, but please don’t offend the members of the republican party who deeply care about keeping the government small, and taxes down. Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush are all Baptist, and it would be great to have another evangelical but please don’t make me have to support a republican who calls the club for growth the club for greed.

We have two parties and those that call the club for growth the club for greed should not have an R by their name. Or else why even have two parties?

Share on Facebook

Share This