Sell me on your candidate.

[TJ in Oregon]

You should support Mitt Romney so we can try to put the Republican Party back together and give ourselves the best chance of defeating President Obama in November. You make a big deal out of needing a pro-life president and while Mitt Romney has not been consistently pro-life in his career he has at least been inconsistent. Like it or not, on your ballot come November the race will be between Barack Obama (D) and Willard "Mitt" Romney (R) for President of the United States. If you want to really change the abortion laws in this country, the first requirement is getting a Supreme Court that will overturn Roe v. Wade. In order to do that you first need a president willing to appoint them and a vacancy. 2016 is probably too late and Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy could have retired by then. What do you think the chances President Obama appoints a pro-life justice are? Like zero. Who knows what President Romney would do but you can't get worse odds than zero.

Absent Santorum from the race, the primary is over and voting for other candidates will only embolden the left to the fissures within the Republican Party and help to ensure President Obama is re-elected. It's time to throw everything we can behind Mitt Romney and hope for the best.

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quite false. Mitt Romney's actions have been entirely consistant. His words have not. He's willing to say whatever he believes will get him elected.

As for his nominees, he has a 6 to 1 ratio of nominating liberals over conservatives.

Romney losing will benefit conservatives because we'll be rid of the Mittbot.

...and guarantee legal abortion for the next 20-30 years.

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the choice is enemy fire or friendly fire, I chose enemy fire.

If Mitt thinks we're going to come over and support him after he's been shooting at us, he's got another think coming. At least I can toss grenades at Obama without hitting our own team.

So you don't actually care whether abortion is legal or not, just whether it comes from 'enemy fire' or 'friendly fire' or who you can criticize without hurting your side?

[TJ in Oregon]

Given the choice between a pro abortion candidate for the democrats and a pro abortion candidate for the republicans, I much prefer having a pro abortion candidate for the democrats.

Does it really need to be explained to you why? Obama can be defeated with zero collateral damage to team conservative.

But Obama can't be defeated by anyone else and Mitt Romney isn't pro-abortion, at least not by what he is currently saying. He is saying such for political expediency, but what makes you so certain he won't appoint pro-life judges if the Republican Party demands it of him? Why are you so determined to lose?

Obama and Romney are not equally pro-abortion. There isn't some magic line out there somewhere that everyone on one side of is pro-life and everyone on the other side of is pro-abortion. There are nuances and varying degrees of both. President Obama is one of the most solidly pro-abortion politicians in the country and Mitt Romney is whatever people want him to be. Surely you can see the difference?

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mitt Romney is pro abortion in his actions as governor of Massachusetts in implementing both public funding for it and forcing the people of Massachusetts to pay for it. I'm aware that Mitt Romney is saying he'd eliminate planned parenthood, but before that he was saying he was the rational one on the women's rights issue. He'll say whatever he believes helps him for political expediency.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because he didn't do so in MA.

The Republican Party in MA is not the same as the Republican Party nationally. They are quite used to running pro-abortion candidates because they aren't used to winning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I should ask of you the same question. Why are you so determined to win on technicalities, but lose on points? Nominating Romney, even in the event that he does win is an enormous loss. It does us no good to remove Obama if we are installing someone who believes in the exact same things. [/quote]

I'm not trying to win on technicalities; you're the one who wants to do that. The only way to win on the issue is to overturn Roe v. Wade. The only way to do that is to have a Supreme Court willing to. The only way to get that is having a president who will appoint pro-life justices. That is not a technicality; it is the main point. Things like parental consent laws and vaginal ultrasounds are technicalities. When you try to achieve an objective, the correct way to approach it is to do whatever gives you the highest probability of achieving it. President Obama gives you zero chance. Any Republican will give you a better chance than him simply because a Republican will appoint other Republicans, some of whom are probably pro-life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, there is. [/quote]

President Obama voted against a law while in the Illinois State Legislature that forbid the killing of babies who survived botched abortions. Mitt Romney would never have supported that. They are different. If you take "pro-life" to mean banning abortion under all circumstances then nowhere near 50% of the US is pro-life. About half the country considers themselves pro-life because they interpret "pro-life" as wanting to give life a chance in some vague general sense. In real life, people don't always take positions for ideological consistency. There are people out there who believe just about every position imaginable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are arguing I should vote for Mitt and see what I get? No thanks. I'll go get a hamburger from the Mickey D's. At least I know what I'll be getting.
[/quote][/quote]

That is a completely illogical statement. You are trying to make a decision based on emotion rather than doing what has the best chance of giving you the right result. By doing so, you will only guarantee the worst result possible. Get ready for four more years of President Obama forcing the Catholic Church to do whatever he wants it to do.

[TJ in Oregon]

Absolutely. Mitt has a 6:1 odds of nominating a liberal over a conservative. Given the average number of supreme court selections in a term, that gives him net odds of exactly zero over Obama.

If we assume President Romney will appoint two justices (with the 6:1 odds you gave) then he has a 1/7 chance of appointing a pro-life judge on each nomination and 6/7 chance of nominating a pro-abortion judge. So, he has a 36/49 chance of nominating two pro-abortion judges. That means there is still ~27% chance he nominates at least one pro-life justice. ~27% is a whole lot better than zero.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rick Santorum is no longer running for president. There are two remaining options for President of the United States with a non-negligible chance of being elected: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.

[TJ in Oregon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What's the odds of Santorum winning in 2016 and appointing prolife judges. Keeping the field clear is more beneficial than 8 years of Romney, because Romney's record is so poor. Thus, any option to Romney other than Obama is a superior option.

By 2017 he won't be replacing Ginsburg and Kennedy, he'll be replacing Scalia and Thomas so it will be a break-even proposition.