It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Romney not running a Social Conservative campaign

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
For the first time in decades a strong Republican Presidential candidate is not running a socially conservative campaign. Nothing is more embarrassing than seeing your party stumble over itself to prove who wants to strip away your rights in the name of God first. Finally for the first time probably since Ford the Republicans have a frontrunner who is not trying to appeal to the evangelicals. This election is based around “it’s the economy stupid” not “it’s the gays stupid”.

Romney rejects 'inappropriate' marriage pledge


Mitt Romney became the first major Republican candidate to outright reject the social conservative "marriage vow" put forward by the Iowa group the Family Leader.

It's the second pledge related to social issues that Romney has declined to put his name to. The first was by the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony list, which wanted candidates to commit to issues that Romney said would handcuff him in terms of stripping thousands of hospitals of funding and making federal appointments.

But unlike 2008, Romney isn't running hard to the right on social issues - he's focused his message heavily on the economy.


He can win back a lot of the old Republican support in the suburban areas if he avoids the social issues, especially in the general election. Mostly in the South and parts of the rural Midwest do people even care that much about whether or not prayer is allowed in school, women are banned from having an abortion, and the idea that gays are just faking their homosexuality, the rest of the country is beyond that already and so too should the Republicans.

If Romney can continue to avoid the social issues then perhaps he could have a chance at winning back states further north come the general election. He should already know by now that being a Mormon from Massachusetts will not help him against Obama in the South, so refusing to fight the culture wars should not chip away too much support that he has already lost in the Bible belt.
edit on 7/13/2011 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Honestly...who cares what he runs? He's owned by the same bankers that own Obama now.

Get a grip of yourself man, get over these theatrical politics.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:23 AM
link   
In my opinion Mitt Romney is just another Arlen Spector, a wolf in sheep's clothing for those that believe in the Democrat/Republican myth. Just some artificial schism straddling to keep everyone more confused.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


I'll do a write in ballot before I vote for him.

He reminds me to much of McCain. A flip-flopper when the situation dictates.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I don't think Romney has much chance of winning. The early primaries in the South and Midwest will be his downfall once again. He needs to social conservatives in order to win the nomination, but with unacceptable stances by party standards on abortion, gay rights and gun control on the record, they're not going to hold their noses and vote for him, just as they didn't last time around. If that's not bad enough, many fiscal conservatives have also turned on him, as, rightly or wrongly, they've equated Romneycare with Obamacare.

In the end, it seems the only people who really want Romney to win the GOP nomination are the old country club liberal Republicans in the New England states, plus the Democratic party and the mainstream media, which both want a pushover candidate that Obama can trounce next fall.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 




mmmm I don't know about that.
Here in MI we have a lot of disillusioned liberals who are sliding to the conservative economist side but are waiting to see which R is going to come out and flat out take Bachmann and tell her where to go.
Some are gunning for Ron Paul (don't get me started on him) and seeing as I don't think he has a chance to make it on the ticket, I can see people who are wanting change, going for Romney.

Hey, besides, he's cuter than Paul.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 


Bang on! Star for you! (I rarely announce that)

I think he's a weasel. one of those snake oil salesmen that will screw you in the long run. The first time I saw him, I didn't trust him and as I try to keep a open mind, did some research. My feeling was justified.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 


American politics is nothing more than an entertaining diversion. It is interesting to watch the posturing and mental gymnastic of the parties but in reality elections aren't decided by votes of the citizens.

Who wants a nice hot cup of hanging chads?



It's obvious since the Bush/Gore election that it's all smoke and mirrors, deception, fraud and corruption.

I don't really know who decides the elections but I'm convinced that it isn't the voters. I think we would be very surprised at the machinations at places like Bohemia Grove.

I do respect you for your old fashioned idealism though! S&F




edit on 13-7-2011 by whaaa because: operation hot wheels



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
American politics is nothing more than an entertaining diversion. It is interesting to watch the posturing and mental gymnastic of the parties but in reality elections aren't decided by votes of the citizens.


This paragraph illustrates the anemic and dismal state of the citizenry. Of course presidential elections are not decided by the voter (at least not in a direct manner!) I am pretty positive you know this too, but in order to perpetuate your cynicism you must overlook the Electoral College to maintain the argument you are making.

The mess we see is because of the poor political engagement by supposedly free peoples. Popular vote and the reporting of it has become a more decisive and more diversionary tactic than most anything in terms of presidential elections. The Bush v. Gore illustrates how stupid the American voter is when it comes to how we (indirectly; as laid out in the Constitution) elect our president.



I don't really know who decides the elections but I'm convinced that it isn't the voters. I think we would be very surprised at the machinations at places like Bohemia Grove.


I think with that statement, I take back the positive assertion that you understand how president's are elected. Democracy is dangerous and that is why it was disseminated and left to the most local levels where smaller groups of people can affect a more positive change with it. On a large scale, the pure democracy that you seem to think is what elects presidents would be more disastrous than anything these pathetic excuse for statesmen could ever bring upon this nation.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Romney will, unfortunately, win the GOP nomination. The general election outcome will equal 2008, though for different reasons. In 2008 Obama was a moderate, but got the hippie vote just for being a Democrat. Now that we know he is an extreme leftist, the entitlement leeches will have enough votes to put him back into office.

/TOA



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy


I think with that statement, I take back the positive assertion that you understand how president's are elected. Democracy is dangerous and that is why it was disseminated and left to the most local levels where smaller groups of people can affect a more positive change with it. On a large scale, the pure democracy that you seem to think is what elects presidents would be more disastrous than anything these pathetic excuse for statesmen could ever bring upon this nation.


Actually I do understand how presidents are SUPPOSED to be elected thru the electoral college. But this is a conspiracy site isn't it?
And as long as were throwing out assertions...
You have let your ideology get in the way of your common sense; in that you want to think the system still works the way it was designed, and that academics always know what they are talking about. That's what I think!

Flash....Local democracy is as corrupt and manipulated as national politics. Positive Change...
...how's that workin out for ya?



edit on 13-7-2011 by whaaa because: hot here



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I'm getting pretty tired of choosing between two big-gov totalitarians.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I'm getting pretty tired of choosing between two big-gov totalitarians.


They own the system though. Sucks, I know. A good friend of mine asked an elections official about 10 years ago what would happen if we all spoiled our ballots. She told him that any official ballots would stand. Small amount that they would be. And every politician would vote for themselves obviously.

The thing I'm looking at is getting the least sucky person in a position to beat another sucky individual. There's no other GOP candidate that can beat Obama. Bottom line.




top topics



 
3

log in

join