SJ Reidhead has some good points in her latest post. The cat soap opera has been fun to read about, even if she is a believer in spaying/neutering (I'm sorry, I am just worried something would go wrong in that sort of thing).
She also hits hard on the flat-out anti-Hispanic bigotry that seems to be going on among some of the immigration hard-liners. Note that the GOP won 40-44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, depending on the survey. It dropped to 28% in 2006 after folks like Tancredo hijacked the GOP on the issue. She also makes a good point about hatred in her post from last night.
That said, I've got to point out that she is being very unfair to Mitt Romney. Yes, he has changed his positions, but he has been honest about the change, but whjen the Massachusetts Supreme Court imposed gay marriage, Romney did everything he could within the law to stop it - and to change the Massachusetts constitution. By her standards, Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. would also be flip-floppers for having changed their position on abortion. So would Henry Hyde. He's explained why he has changed his views, multiple times. What more do some of these people want, ritual seppuku?
I will disclose that I am 85% certain that I will support Romney in the primaries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You realize you are waving a red flag at me! I’ve come to realize if a person has multiple cats, spaying and neutering is the only way to go. I’ve never waited so long to neuter a male cat before Little Buddy. After a life-time of cats, I truly think they do better if they are neutered. If you have only one gender in the house-hold you can get away with it. If not, you get…kittens!
I truly have a problem with Romney. It has nothing to do with his changing his opinion on things. People are allowed to change. I’ve truly undergone a complete change of opinion over the death penalty, but it was out of conscience. I’ve even had a change of the way I approach gay marriage this past year because of a gay couple I know. If I thought Romney’s changes of opinion were out of conscience and not political expediency I would not have a problem. Unfortunately, I just don’t see it. There are several things that alarm me about him. I think he is vindictive – if that is the word I want to use. He ‘feuds’ with people. This bothers me. I also do not like what I see in the ashes of the state’s GOP. http://earlcapps.blogspot.com/2006/11/romney-and-end-of-massachusetts-gop.html I see him as the GOP version of Bill Clinton.
When he was running the Olympics a few years ago, I was quite impressed with him and thought he had a great political future, so I am not coming at my concerns about him from a bias. I did not have a problem with him. The thing that truly turned me against him was that morning in August when the UK had those terror arrests and warnings. He goes on Fox an declares the US must be willing to give up some freedom for security. That made my skin crawl. Then, when he confused the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, that clinched it for me. No one in his position should confuse the two. Someone commented that he may have been nervous on national television. He’s been exposed to the media way too long for that excuse to hold water.
I don’t trust any politician, Dem or GOP who feels we must be willing to give up some of our liberties for a little security. Like Franklin said, those who do deserve neither. I am concerned with anyone who wants to be President of the United States who blithely says this without putting a caveat on it.
The Pink Flamingo
Post a Comment