Comments on: The Chameleon-Like Qualities of Mitt Romney’s Conservatism

By: Timothy McGaffin II

Timothy McGaffin II — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 20:24:29 +0000

And since the writing of this great article, Mitt Romney also supports the Unconstitutional NDAA and assured us that he will “not abuse this power.”

This SCREAMS wolf in sheep’s clothing.

It is easy to identify the wolves in sheeps clothing.

Those who support and follow the Constitution 100% are sheeps in sheeps clothing>

Those who support and follow UNconstitutional acts are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

It’s time for us to mobilize and stand up for our civil rights! Spread the message of Liberty!

Ron Paul 2012!

By: Ralph Hughes

Ralph Hughes — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:01:58 +0000

I think this would be better entitled “The Deceptions of Mitt Romney”.

By: Jim Davis

Jim Davis — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 23:56:43 +0000

Kathleen,

I don’t think the issue is that Mitt came around on abortion. It’s that he conveniently keeps on changing his message depending on who his audience is. Does that sound like an honest person to you?

By: Kathleen OMeal

Kathleen OMeal — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:40:41 +0000

I am not concerned that Romney changed his stance on abortion and publicly explained why he changed his opinion on this. I would be more concerned about someone who could not admit an error in judgement. I think it speaks well of character to make change such as this. As LDS, we should be lauding this and not using this from such a shallow perspective. I am sure Romney will downsize Washington quickly and decisively and we will all go through very hard times. Get ready to take in some neighbors who will not have enough to live on. That seems like a way we can all help the economy right now and really at least to act our way through being LDS people.

By: Ryan Lanier

Ryan Lanier — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 02:05:07 +0000

Agree with nearly everything you wrote re: Romney.

Then you go off the rails and show your Ron Paul colors on foreign policy. Very dangerous mindset. Which makes Ron Paul a dangerous man.

Your write: “Instead of seeking to understand and advocating sound foreign policies such as the just war theory and the golden rule, Romney advocates a jingoistic, imperial campaign against something as loose an affiliation as “radical Islam”.

Tell me – is the Taliban a loose affiliation to radical Islam as you suggest? How about Al Qaeda? How loose do we need to be with labeling our enemies before we decide that we don’t really have any?

Another doozy: “Mitt Romney, in short, favors empire. Undeclared, perpetual warfare against a loosely-organized and poorly supplied rag-tag band of “insurgents” is something to which Romney is eager and willing to commit blood and treasure, with no qualifiers whatsoever. As said earlier, this is a full embrace of the neoconservative promotion of warfare to vanquish whatever enemy may exist.”

I won’t speak for Romney on this matter, but you make gross generalizations here, calling everyone of Romney’s supposed ilk to be “neo-conservatives.” Are you saying that we are doing harm by being in Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. Are we building empires there? Did we take Iraq’s oil? In fact, the US is often criticized for leaving the Persian Gulf too early to leave Kuwait to fend for itself. Tell me, were we building a empire then? If so, why did we stop? Surely, that would have been a great foothold to securing oil for decades. Please explain your logic.

And Lybia. Many “neo-cons” (myself included) did NOT support this invasion. It had nothing to do with US national interests. The neo-cons you might be thinking of, or at least the “talking heads” (Limbaugh, Levin, Elder) also opposed it. We understand the proper use of military. Problem with Ron Paul is he never seems it to be warranted.

I encourage you to think of the good the US has done, and without her influence, the ill that would befall her and many other nations had she not pursued war when it was to protect her citizens and interests.

As one poet once wrote “Wake up or die in your sleep”.

By: Ralph Hughes

Ralph Hughes — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 15:00:25 +0000

I consider Mitt Romney a disgrace to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. He comes up very short on cetain important moral and constitutional principles.

IMO Ron Paul upholds true LDS standards all the way across the full range of political issues. He puts to shame all other LDS politicians I know of, especially Romney, Huntsman and Hatch.

By: Rich Alger

Rich Alger — Thu, 01 Dec 2011 08:24:40 +0000

I think Romney will make an excellent President. He can beat Obama, unlike Ron Paul or the Libertarian nominee. I may not agree with Mitt’s change on some of the things you listed but I definitely agree with him at least 80% of the time.

I appreciate libertarian principles. I admire Ron Paul’s consistency. He plays a very important role in checking the Republican party. Though I think some of his foreign policy is downright dangerous.

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:35:18 +0000

Gun rights – The blogger’s big problems are that Romney fought against assault rifles, encourages federal background checks for would-be gun buyers, and he’s only been hunting twice even though he said he hunts. I’m okay with all these things.
Health care – Clearly Romney wants national health care, but his plan is intended to lower the costs for everyone. I don’t like it or agree with it, but he’s never waffled on it.
Homosexuals – Because Romney thought homosexuals should be protected in the workplace (which I agree with in limited circumstances), Republican gay advocacy rights supported him (shocker). In Mass., the state supreme court allowed for homosexual marriage, and Romney put that into effect. Had the supreme court not done that, Romney would’ve most certainly not allowed it.
Abortion – This is his biggest “flip-flop.” He would not have been elected in Mass. if he had openly opposed abortion. What he told them in Mass. was that he wouldn’t challenge it. Now that the presidency is at stake, he can say he’s pro-life without undermining his entire campaign. It’d be nice if he had always said he was pro-life, but he wouldn’t have won the governorship and we wouldn’t be talking about him now. The curse of being a Republican running in a Democratic state is that you either bend on a few issues or you don’t get elected (and then nothing changes).
Terrorism – The blogger doesn’t even try to say Romney flip-flopped here. He details how Romney believes in being extremely aggressive in putting an end to those radicals who threaten our country. I have no idea why there’s anything wrong with this belief.
Miscellaneous – The blogger is upset that Romney spent money polling potential voters, does not support legalized marijuana, and told a reporter he has never talked to God before (come on, that’s an obvious landmine, it wasn’t a question of revelation, it was a question of face-to-face contact with God).

Maybe this blogger’s zeal for Ron Paul has led him to see Romney in an unfavorable light, through no fault of Romney.

By: Will All Mormons Vote for Romney? | Politics | Mormon DNA

Will All Mormons Vote for Romney? | Politics | Mormon DNA — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 20:19:58 +0000

[...] But Romney’s problem is that there are some Mormons who don’t quite feel comfortable with him. Mormons tend to be quite conservative, and Romney’s past positions on abortion and gay marriage as well as his apparent propensity to change his mind depending on what will benefit his political career have made some Mormons a bit cautious, if not downright disenchanted. [...]

By: Ralph Hughes

Ralph Hughes — Mon, 30 May 2011 18:58:07 +0000

As more LDSs awake to our “awful situation” and realize how much of it is due to neglect of the principles the Lord gave us for good government, they will likely look for candidates for office who demonstrate understanding of the Constitution and a determination to be guided by it. I would not be surprised if Mitt Romney started paying lip service to the Constitution. And if Romney doesn’t do a turnabout PDQ we need to start warning our fellow LDSs that he is ignoring a major tenet of our religion in ignoring the principles of the original Constitution. I appreciate the information available on this blog and elsewhere that reveals Romney’s disdain for the US Constitution and ask that others, as they become aware of further evidences that he is disdainful of our Constitution, make note of them here with references. It will be a big help in our efforts to awake our fellow Mormons.

By: Connor

Connor — Thu, 19 May 2011 03:58:09 +0000

You added the word “allegedly” after I questioned your dubious sources, but you have no evidence whatsoever that it’s true. This article, written by a Latter-day Saint who ironically now supports Romney, carries the same tune. Given Romney's advocacy of homosexuals within the BSA and his Massachusetts political aspirations, the "uniform" reason for excluding the Scouts from active participation seems to be an appeasement. Given the other factors involved in the BSA/homosexual issue, and the assertions made by Rick Perry and others (including the journalist here linked to, which even after deciding to support Romney, never retracted his statements on these issues), I'm inclined to think that the allegation may have some merit. Not saying it's 100% factual, but I do believe there's enough skeptical suspicion to merit consideration of the allegation, substantiated as it is by a few others. Either way, it's a complete side issue to the main arguments presented, and should be treated as such, whether it's true or false.

By: Curtis

Curtis — Wed, 18 May 2011 23:37:01 +0000

The reason SLOC did not include the BSA in the Olympics had nothing to do with Homosexuality. The IOC didn’t like the uniforms and forbade it. The IOC didn’t want anything military or military uniforms near or associated with the games. I suggest that you take out the BSA reference as it is factually inaccurate.

By: Jared

Jared — Wed, 18 May 2011 22:03:47 +0000

Connor, I hope you cut out completely the reference to Mitt supposedly “banning the Boy Scouts” from volunteering in the Olympics because of their stance on homosexuals. You added the word “allegedly” after I questioned your dubious sources, but you have no evidence whatsoever that it’s true. It doesn’t pass the smell test since Mitt was on the BSA national board. I have also heard (through admittedly dubious sources as well) that one of the reasons for NOT including Boy Scouts was the IOC didn’t want anyone in uniform that resembled anything military. That makes a lot more sense than a former Bishop, Stake President, and BSA board member deciding to make such a silly ban.

That was the first one of your references I looked into, and it was a pretty lousy source (some random blog). I wonder how many people on here have bothered checking your sources.

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 05:05:36 +0000

You need to do a little fact checking with what he did with the budget in Massachusetts and not just link to some opinion article of a woman who obviously has a bias. He never claimed he cut the budget, he cut the budget deficit.

By: THOMAS DYCHES

THOMAS DYCHES — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:25:32 +0000

No he can’t Ralph. He obviously doesn’t get it or he’s in bed with the elites. I think it’s the former because I prefer to attribute to ignorance over malice.

Thomas, PYROLITICAL Radio Show

By: Ralph Hughes

Ralph Hughes — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 23:17:54 +0000

Thomas, Truth be known, Romney’s support probably gleaned a lot more votes for Bennett than we realize. Romney still wields a lot of influence among LDS voters. That guy just cannot seem to get it right, can he>

By: THOMAS DYCHES

THOMAS DYCHES — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 22:05:11 +0000

Ralph, I also believe anyone with “constitutional principles” cannot support Romney. I remember when Romney stumped for Senator Bob Bennett last year at the UT State GOP Conv. What a joke. That didn’t help Bennett any.

Thomas, PYROLITICAL Radio Show

By: Ralph Hughes

Ralph Hughes — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 19:50:29 +0000

Mention on another thread of Arizona Senator John McCain gave me a flash back to his stumping here in AZ and being introduced and endorsed by Mitt Romney. My contempt for John McCain goes back many years and includes his betrayal of a congressional committee investigation into missing POWs (MIAs), his betrayal of the 2nd Amendment which fueled a recall effort in AZ,, and his numerous promotions of unconstitutional legislations and programs beneficial to establishment of the NWO. How anyone of moral and constitutional principles can support McCain is beyind my comprehension.

By: Ralph Hughes

Ralph Hughes — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:34:43 +0000

Mitt Romney sticks to his beliefs (with the exception of that about God speaking to man since He spoke to Moses at the bush). It’s just that his beliefs seem to change with the audience he is speaking to and what they want to hear.

By: Brennan

Brennan — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 06:14:56 +0000

Liz, you are still posting on this……..

really???????

saying Mitt is “ready to fix this country’s fiscal problems.”

PLEASE! Have you still not read the article? Have you not read ANY of the comments above?

I have ADHD, (diagnosed by a doctor) and I still managed to read the article and ALL the comments.

Mitt is terrible!!! Pick a candidate who will stick to his beliefs!