Right On The Right

-I have 8 hours or so to kill at work everyday. I make my way through every post on here. I am sad.

I follow my conscious. It rarely fails me and nobody else has claim on it.

Which is a pretty lame thing to say, but I have a bit of a cold and the Theraflu is making to wonky.

as it is an older post, but I must tell you...you are a hoot! No seriously, you are nothing if not entertaining, and I greatly appreciate your candor in clarifying yourself. God (or whatever you follow) speed.

-Devil's Advocate I am and remain. It is the sign of intelligent people to change their positions given new facts and circumstances (which is why G.Bush II might not be all that smart (cheap shot)), and I understand having to compromise when one is up against the other side of the aisle. I don't hold it against Romney. I would like to hear politicians explain these things when their positions switch.

Though given my personal leanings, that there's too much breeding going around and women should be able to choose to not ruin their lives with a baby, I find it saddening that someone moves in a position that I consider backwards.

But if Romney is no longer pro-choice, how does he rationalize that with the story of the family friend who died in a botched illegal abortion?

There seems to be three threads of the American Politician. The first is the true believer, someone like Ron Paul who, outside of distancing himself from racist statements made in a newsletter his people put out, seems to have the same leanings he had 20-30 years ago.

The second are the compromisers and intelligent movers. Let's put Romney here. Ideas change as times change. Just explain it.

And the third is the panderer. Hillary of course, Bill, obviously. McCain?

Where do you think the majority of American Politicians fit?

Thanks for calling me out on this. It gave me a chance to explain myself somewhat. :)

come on, you must be playing devils advocate on this one (as usual). I mean, yes he was once pro-choice, he admits that, but all decisions (not just the ones in his last year of office when he was planning to possibly run for POTUS, as some would suggest) he made regarding life issues were for life, not choice. You of all people won't hold politicians to this impossible standard of never changing, right? But if you look at his platform during the very campaign the video clip comes from, you will note that his positions were all conservative with the exception of abortion. So no, he'a not pandering, he's taking the same positons he always has. Sure there were some practical compromises working with the democratic leg. in mass., but that doesn't negate his true political philosophy. Had he been governor of, oh, I don't know, Idaho, he wouldn't have had to compromise (as much). But he was able to get things done without sacrificing his core conservative principles. Sign of a good leader, IMO. And Gay rights? Come on, you know better than that.

Is Mitt Romney viable?

-Romney doesn't currently support gay rights and isn't pro-choice anymore?

Gee, he must be pandering to some base or something...

And, ah, Romney was speaking too, not just Classic Ted.

I said to please respond with current policy positions that Romney holds that are not conservative, and you come back with sound bytes from Teddy Kennedy- classic.

-Romney kind of thought people shouldn't have their rights infringed upon by the gove'ment. So I guess he's considered a RINO.

Please name policy positions that Mitt Romney currently holds that are not conservative in nature-besides healthcare, of course.

>I watched the polls
I could care less what the momentum of the moment is. I want a conservative, and I'm not going to turn RINO because of a few polls.