Michael Medved is a strong supporter of Mitt Romney. Let’s look at Romney’s views.
Here is Mitt Romney on abortion:
And more:
Mitt Romney on immigration:
Mitt Romney on global warming:
Here is Mitt Romney on gun control:
Here is Mitt Romney on embryonic stem cell research:
Here is Mitt Romney on the flat tax:
So long as Michael Medved endorses Romney, then Michael Medved is not a conservative in any sense of the word.
So everyone knows I don’t have a TV and that the only thing on TV that I think is worth watching is Bret Baier on Fox News’ Special Report. Let’s see why, below.
Here’s Bret Baier interviewing Mitt Romney:
Excerpt:
BAIER: Like the “Union Leader,” your critics charge that you make decisions based on political expediency and not core conviction. You have been on the both sides of some issues, and there’s videotape of you going back years, speaking about different issues, climate change, abortion, immigration, gay rights.
How can voters trust what they hear from you today is what you will believe if you win the White House?
ROMNEY: Well, Bret, your list is just not accurate. So, one, we’re going to have to be better informed about my views on issues. My view is, you can look at what I’ve written in my book. You can look at a person who has devoted his life to his family, to his faith, to his country, and I’m running for president because of the things I believe I think I can do to help this country.
And I know in politics there are going to be those who try in every way they can to tear down one another, but the real question is, does Barack Obama have the capacity to lead this country out of a very difficult economic setting? And the answer is no. He’s proven he doesn’t. And I do.
That’s my experience. That’s what I know how to do. The American people want someone who knows how to lead, who believes in the free economy, and understands the principals it takes to get America strong, economically, militarily, and culturally.
BAIER: But I’m sure you’ve seen these ads, using videotape of you in previous years, speaking on various issues.
ROMNEY: Uh-huh.
BAIER: And it seems like it’s in direct contrast to positions you take now.
ROMNEY: Well, I’m glad that the Democratic ads are breaking through and you got —
BAIER: Jon Huntsman has a couple ads that do the exact same thing.
So Romney is saying to Republican voters “never mind what I am saying in my own words in those videos, just read my book instead”.
It’s easy to find videos of Mitt Romney speaking in his own words endorsing abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay rights, gun control, man-made global warming, amnesty, and pretty much every position that Obama holds. His Romneycare health care plan is quite similar to Obamacare, and has created enormous budget deficits in Massachussetts.
Anyway, Bret’s questions seem fair to me, but it turns out that Romney was offended by them:
CNS News reports.
Excerpt:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is now seeking the Republican presidential nomination, complained to Fox News Special Report anchor Bret Baier after an interview on Tuesday that Baier’s questioning had been “overly aggressive” and “uncalled for,” according to Baier.
“He was irritated by the interview after we were done,” Baier said of Romney when he appeared on Fox News’s “O’Reilly Factor” on Wednesday to discuss the interview.
O’Reilly asked Baier: “How do you know he was irritated? Did he slap you? Or what did he do?”
Well, he just made it clear at the end of the interview,” said Baier.
“Tell me how he made it clear?” asked O’Reilly. “What it is–did he say something to you?
“He said he thought it was overly aggressive,” said Baier.
“He did, he said that to you?” said O’Reilly. “He said it was overly aggressive?”
“He did,” affirmed Baier.
“And as we were walking in the walk and talk and then after he finished he went to his holding room and then came back and said he didn’t like the interview and thought it was uncalled for,” said Baier.
Is this thin-skinned RINO the person we want in the Oval office in 2012? Why elect a clone of Obama?
You can see some of the videos featuring Mitt Romney in this post and this post.
From CNS News.
Excerpt:
President Barack Obama has not yet decided whether to go forward with a proposed regulation under the health care law he signed last year that would force Catholic individuals and instutions to act against the teachings of the Catholic church.
In August, Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius proposed a regulation–that would take affect next fall–that would require all health care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including abortifacients. The proposed regulation includes a very narrow religious exemption that does not cover individual Catholics, or Catholic universities, hospitals or charitable institutions.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops have called the regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” and have called on American Catholics to contact HHS and demand that the regulation be rescinded.
[…]Because of Obamacare’s mandate that all individuals must buy health insurance, the “preventive services” regulation would mean individual American Catholics would be forced to buy health insurance that pays for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortions–all of which violate Catholic moral teachings.
Many major Catholic institutions and Catholic business owners would be forced to choose between dropping health insurance coverage for their employees and students or violating their religious beliefs.
“Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase ‘services’ to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty,” the bishops said in commentary on the proposed regulation they submitted to HHS.
As an evangelical Protestant, I get so confused when I see many people who label themselves as “Catholic” voting to equate abortion with health care.
Insurance is about sharing costs. Why should people who choose not to have sex outside of marriage (like me) be compelled to pay the bills of people who freely choose to engage in risky, recreational sex? When you subsidize something, you get more of it. So why should pro-lifers be forced subsidize something that we don’t want more of? Why should pro-lifers want to make it less costly for people to engage in behaviors that result in the killing of an innocent child?
WINTERY KNIGHT 