Why I can’t support Mitt Romney

Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily articulates my concerns very well:

Mitt Romney, fresh from a victory in the Iowa straw poll, says now he was wrong to misrepresent his position on abortion as a candidate and governor of Massachusetts.

In other words, he admits he lied – then.

But, what if he wasn’t lying back then? What if he merely believes in situational ethics? What if, like so many other politicians, he will merely say or do whatever is expedient to achieve political victory and power?

These are questions likely Republican voters should be asking themselves now – not when Romney is accepting the GOP nomination for the presidency.

Read the rest of the editorial here.

In case that wasn’t enough, here’s another one.

Be Sociable, Share!

10 Responses to “Why I can’t support Mitt Romney”

  1. mish says:

    This is consistent with Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. It’s okay to lie if it’s for a greater good. They call it a “Higher Law.”

    Joseph Farah has it right on Romney. Here’s another blog citing another article by Farah.


    Like Mormonism, the blog isn’t what it seems.

  2. casey says:

    Well, Mitt’s “conversion” to conservatism is just too convenient for my tastes. If he wants to run for President, he needs to prove himself as a pro-life, pro-family governor first. Politicians don’t get the benefit of the doubt.

  3. Lincoln says:

    It’s funny, I wouldn’t balk at voting for Giuliani, a Catholic and a moderate, yet I absolutely cringe at the thought of voting for a Mormon. Go figure.

  4. casey says:

    I’ll vote for a third party for the first time in my life if Giuliani gets the nomination. Pro-abortion vs. less pro-abortion? That’s no choice. If the Republican party is dumb enough to put a pro-abortion candidate on the ticket, then it needs a big shake up. Voting for the lesser of two evils just isn’t going to work in that case, because the party itself will already have been lost to the liberals. I’d vote for Romney if he had a proven track record of pro-life and pro-family governing. The Mormon thing doesn’t bother me.

  5. Vlad says:

    I do hope Mike Huckabee will be on the ballot.
    The next president is not likely to appoint a a judge to the Suprem Court so maybe we can survive four years of “less” pro-abortion president?

  6. casey says:

    That runs against conventional wisdom, Vlad. We have Ginsburg who is 74 and Stevens at 87. These two are likely to retire within the next presidential term. It’s vital that we get a Republican we can trust into the White House. Personally, I only trust Mike and Fred.

  7. Ash75 says:

    If Romney loses, I think WND will have contributed significantly to that loss. A lot of conservative voters pay very close attention to that paper. As for lying, I too think it’s OK for a greater good. When people hid Jews to save their lives and lied to the Nazis about their whereabouts, was that wrong? Was it wrong for the Hebrew midwives to lie to the Egyptians about babies that would have otherwise been slaughtered?

    Casey: As for “pro-abortion vs. less pro-abortion,” personally I’d put anyone who thinks it should be left up to the states in the “less pro-abortion” category. Should states have the right to vote on whether or not it’s OK to kill children? Similarly, should states have the right to legalize slavery or killing Jews?

  8. casey says:

    Ash75, I agree with you. The Mormon belief of lying for the greater good is not completely off the mark. I think mish might be suggesting that Mitt thinks his candidacy is the greater good. If so, then we’re talking about something completely different.

    I take it you’re talking about Fred Thompson in the comment directed at me. I agree that “letting the states decide” is no solution. He does have a 100% prolife voting record, though, and I’m joined by the National Right to Life in trusting that he would appoint constructionist judges. The first step is going to be overturning Roe v Wade, anyway. Even Huckabee once toyed with the idea of leaving it up to the states:

    “The issue divides strongly committed pro-life and pro-choice Republicans but is not a central issue to most other Republicans. A possible platform revision long under discussion would say the Republican Party, ‘unlike the Democratic Party, does not stand for abortion on demand and is basically a pro-life party.’ In the spirit of federalism, the proposed GOP revision also would replace the abortion amendment with a statement saying the issue should be left up to the individual state legislatures to deal with as each sees fit. ‘That’s exactly what we have looked for, and if it’s left up to the states, more of them are going to put some restrictions on abortion,’ Arkansas Lt. Gov. Mike Huckabee said in an interview after app earing on a conference panel yesterday.” (Ralph Z. Hallow, “Conservatives Hold Fire On Abortion,” Washington Times, 2/12/95)

  9. Ash75 says:

    If Thompson, Romney, or any other “states rights” Republican gets the Republican ticket, I hope that he is lying for the greater good when he is saying it should be up to the states, and that in his heart he actually believes there should be a federal ban on child killing. I will be happy if Roe V Wade is overturned, but that doesn’t go far enough.

  10. casey says:

    I agree. If the Republicans got enough votes for a federal life amendment, I can’t see Thompson or Huckabee vetoing it. They’d almost certainly sign it into law. That could only happen after RvW was overturned, though. I can’t picture Romney pushing for constructionist judges though. He’d almost certainly go for non-controversial ones. Despite what he says, I’m certain Giuliani would, also. The only ones that are really going to battle for good judges are Fred and Mike.