The EFM Feature
Face palm, from Flickr user striatic, used under a Creative Commons license

Item 1: Secular headline blares, “Mitt Romney’s Long Fight Against Gay Marriage.”

Item 2: Conservative evangelical headline charges, “Romney goes full Etch-A-Sketch twice on gay agenda.”

Item 3: Longtime Romney skeptic blasts conservative writers who leaked from off-the-record meeting.

Some loving advice for the conservative echo chamber, from a longtime pal:  When your opponents see someone as a big ally of yours, yet you continue to kick sand in his face, and then a frequent critic of that would-be ally in your own camp tells you (on a different but related front) that you’re being childish, it might be time to check yourself.

It is one thing to reject real Republicans In Name Only.  That’s why I’ve never voted for the preeminent RINO, who comes from my state, former Sen. Arlen Specter.  It’s another to become a “clanging cymbal,” and I fear that’s where we’re headed.

For the best perspective on Gov. Romney’s record on social issues, from the leaders on those issues in his own state, see here.

About Charles Mitchell

EFM's resident Yankee, Charles Mitchell, works in the non-profit arena in his native Pennsylvania. He and his wife, Charissa, live near the state capital of Harrisburg with their daughter, Adeline, and are members of a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

11 Responses to A Bizarre Confluence

  1. RC says:

    Is any government perfect? Government is only a “vehicle” to protect humankind in their already God-given rights – nothing more, nothing less. To protect us, each one of us individually, with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the ONLY the only role the government has the obligation to perform. Anything other than this is a flagrant usurpation. All citizens must be educated on the true and proper role of government and also come to the realization that government is force, that law is force.

    When any governmental institution crosses over this clear line between the protective role of what they have been authorized to do into an aggressive role of (for example) reallocating this nations wealth and furnishing illegal benefits for one or several citizens, the government then becomes a vehicle for what we can correctly describe as legalized extortion or plunder.

    We are at the crossroads of this “government role” as I have described above. We have a choice to make. Either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? Make your choice. One of these two men will be the next President of the United States. Which one will best protect YOU, as an individual, in the arena of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? Once you have made that decision, then ask yourself the next question – Which one of these two men will be the most frugal of your tax dollar? You only have two choices. Make it wisely. Is government perfect? Are these two men perfect? Are you perfect?

  2. Larry says:

    “For the best perspective”? Perhaps, or is it merely the most preferable perspective. Here is another …

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/210678/missing-governor/hadley-arkes
    And another

    http://www.theinteramerican.org/blogs/law-and-government/325-the-story-of-tony-perkins-cover-up-for-mitt-romney-by-john-haskins.html

    These are the problems which will naturally emerge when a man who has presented himself as a “severe” conservative but regularly and instinctively addresses issues from a distinctly non-conservative point of view. Attempts to mask the real Mitt Romney will find you continually faulting conservatives for their … well, conservatism.

    Mitt’s conservatism is more often than not scripted. When he speaks (and acts from the heart) the absence of philosophical conservatism becomes painfully apparent. Leaving those who have insisted upon Mitt’s conservative bona-fides angrily denouncing those who simply point out the obvious.

    The more you engage in such dishonest and petulant rants the more swiftly and completely you shed your credibility. Heck, before long you’ll enjoy company among “conservatives” like David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan and Kathleen Parker.

    You know, attempting to advance conservative causes while satisfying liberal sensibilities is rather like attempting to satisfy marital fidelity while pursuing your mistress. It’s not merely impossible … its utterly contradictory.

  3. Terry says:

    To RC’s post, I would add a few Ronald Reagan quotes:

    . Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
    . Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
    . Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
    . I have wondered at times what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the US Congress.
    . One way to make sure crime doesn’t pay would be to let the government run it.
    . Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.

    :)

    • Larry says:

      “For the best perspective”? Perhaps, or is it merely the most preferable perspective. Here is another …

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/210678/missing-governor/hadley-arkes
      And another

      http://www.theinteramerican.org/blogs/law-and-government/325-the-story-of-tony-perkins-cover-up-for-mitt-romney-by-john-haskins.html

      These are the problems which will naturally emerge when a man who has presented himself as a “severe” conservative but regularly and instinctively addresses issues from a distinctly non-conservative point of view. Attempts to mask the real Mitt Romney will find you continually faulting conservatives for their … well, conservatism.

      Mitt’s conservatism is more often than not scripted. When he speaks (and acts from the heart) the absence of philosophical conservatism becomes painfully apparent. Leaving those who have insisted upon Mitt’s conservative bona-fides angrily denouncing those who simply point out the obvious.

      The more you engage in such dishonest and petulant rants the more swiftly and completely you shed your credibility. Heck, before long you’ll enjoy company among “conservatives” like David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan and Kathleen Parker.

      You know, attempting to advance conservative causes while satisfying liberal sensibilities is rather like attempting to satisfy marital fidelity while pursuing your mistress. It’s not merely impossible … its utterly contradictory.

    • Terry says:

      Censorship? Where in the world did you come up with that one, Larry? It’s certainly not mentioned in RC’s post. In fact, it’s not even hinted at.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>