Mitt Romney

Neither Tancredo nor Holt are neo-cons. Neither of them are in favor of Big Government like neo-cons are.

 

His support for larger federal government spending says otherwise.

 

With the politicians that Massachussettes voters send to office, it is hard to imagine him being anything but liberal. Kennedy, Kerry, Dukakis, for starters. It seems he has flip flopped on right to life. No thanks. He would not do well in this state against a moderate democrat.

 

Some rather salient points from an evangelical Christian perspective:

www.evangelicalsformitt.org/why.php

 

All three gentlemen in question are neo-con leaders in that they support winning the war on terror instead of following the idiot isolationists dream and cutting and running and leaving a slaughter in Iraq just like we did in Vietnam and the first Gulf War. All three are great leaders and I would vote for any one of them as a small government neo-con.:thumbsup:

Joseph Botwinick

 

Wanting to defend the United States does not make one a neo-con. Also, by definition a neo-con is in favor of larger domestic spending policies in government.

 

All three also support spreading democracy to the Middle East in order to secure our homeland from attack. That is neo-con 101.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Agreeing with someone on one issue does not mean that one agrees with that person's whole body of belief.

I agree with the Pope that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. That is Christianity 101. That does not mean that I am a Roman Catholic.

 

You know, there is nothing wrong with supporting the Neo-Con dream of spreading democracy in order to make the world a better place and secure your own homeland from attack. As a matter of fact, I think it is downright noble. When I refer to these men as Neo-Cons, it is a positive thing. Don't you agree.

Joseph Botwinick

 

It is a whole lot more difficult, if not impossible, to impose a democracy on an non-industrialized, violently sectarian nation such as Iraq.

Remember, Japan and German were industrialized nations.

Also, wanting to see other nations adopt democracy does not make one a neo-con.

 

I could live with Romney, especially if my other choices were Guiliani and McCain. I would much rather see someone like Mike Huckabee, the departing Governor of Arkansas, who is consistently pro-life and small government, be on the ballot.

 

Huckabee is not small government. He is also a soft on crime liberal. Won't vote for him.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No, I would not, for these reasons:
1. As a Mormon, he's subject to the authority of the elders of the Mormon church (in a more rigid way than Christians are subject to their pastors/elders) and the Mormon teachings are false, poisonous, and deceptive
2. Having Romney as Pres might give the Mormon Church more credibility (if he did well, let's say)
3. Romney is not as conservative on abortion and some other issues as I am