I put up a post on Facebook that linked to a long page documenting Mitt Romney's disturbing record on abortion. One person defended Romney as "articulate" and "smart and quick on his feet" (as opposed to Republicans who are not) and I made the following spontaneous response:
* * *
Someone with a history of being so avidly pro-abortion is suspect. Perhaps he has had a real change of heart, but even if so, I wouldn't trust such a man to be vigorously in favor of the sort of pro-life legislation that we need: tough measures to insure the protection of the children. We don't want another Souter on the Court, or even another Kennedy (whom Reagan appointed). It's very difficult to find a good Justice to put in. We managed to get Roberts and Alito. I don't believe that Romney would appoint such men.
If Romney appointed someone like himself (seems likely and plausible to me): a waffler and one who traditionally could not see that abortion is wrong, then such a person would not vote to overturn Roe or even alter it to any significant degree. He would do the bidding of the pro-aborts, just as Justice Kennedy (a Catholic!) often has.
This is all about the liberal media's desire to get Romney nominated because he is moderate enough that folks won't see much difference between him and Obama (Huntsman gets the same treatment, but he is a non-factor); thus giving the latter a better chance to be re-elected. One doesn't hear Romney being run down; it's all about Perry and Bachmann being wild-eyed extreme fundamentalists.
That's the dead give-away. If a Republican is absolutely despised, mocked, detested, called all kinds of names by our superior liberal masters and overlords, then you know you have the right person. Apologetics works the same way! [LOL] Find someone who is being called all kinds of names by the anti-Catholics, and you have someone who (chances are) is being an effective and successful defender of the faith. No names . . . :-) :-)
Same thing happened to Reagan, Gingrich (back in the mid-90s), Bork, Clarence Thomas, Rumsfeld, Cheney, W.: anyone who opposes the liberal status quo.
I couldn't care less than I do how "articulate" a candidate is. He can stumble all over his words and wear a dunce cap, as long as he does the right things and puts in place good policy. Obama is extremely articulate and likable to boot. But what good is that? Where has it gotten the country? So he looks good on camera and makes a great personal impression . . . so what!!!??
Joe Biden is not very "articulate", but Obama saw him as a great VP choice. Dick Cheney is extremely articulate and intelligent, yet did that make any difference in the liberals' opinion of him? Nope, of course not. Republicans are attacked and pilloried no matter what. Colin Powell was so "articulate" that he was stupid enough to vote for Obama.
Obama is so "articulate" that he didn't even know that the word "corpsman" had a silent "p". Imagine if W had said that? But W didn't say anything nearly that dumb . . .
I don't think Romney will be the nominee, because stuff like this is gonna come out, and the base won't put up with it. Perry is likely gonna be The Man. I like Bachmann better, but polls are clear that she is not as electable as Perry is, and you have to go back to Garfield, I think, to find a President elected from the House. Being a woman is not an issue; we have gotten beyond that now.