A.F.A Voter Guide 2008

[Air Force Guy]

http://www.afa.net/pdfs/08vg.pdf

Too bad Fred left the party early. I'd have liked to seen where he stood on these issues.

Ron Paul's on there....as are Dem candidates.

[jayson]

Schmuckabee? Tell me more people aren't going to be hoodwinked by this clown.

[Neil Peart]

They're being pretty unfair to Mike Gravel by not including him. :rolleyes:

[Suzie]

WOW!!!!! Check out MORAL EDUCATION. I really don't like these people. :(

[Air Force Guy]

WOW!!!!! Check out MORAL EDUCATION. I really don't like these people. :(I don't understand your meaning. Romney's the only one who is OK with queer literature in schools...according to their source for Romney's stance.

[Suzie]

I don't understand your meaning. Romney's the only one who is OK with queer literature in schools...according to their source for Romney's stance.

Yes that's what I mean. Romney supports teaching our kids Homosexuality. Now I like him even less.

[The_Elucidator]

Where is Bloomberg and where is the Transfat issue?

[Suzie]

This list has been quite the eye opener for me. Romney stinks worse than I thought.

[Timberwolf]

Yup...RP it is...

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: It looks as though McCain is more conservative than Romney. At least, he doesn't agree with the demonic rats as much. I might have to reconsider my impending vote.

[Suzie]

:unsmile: It looks as though McCain is more conservative than Romney. At least, he doesn't agree with the demonic rats as much. I might have to reconsider my impending vote.

I am trying to research all of these Moo and right now it sure does seem that way. As impossible as it sounds Romney is very much to the left of McCain on social issues and gun rights.

[Elgalad]

No offense, Air Force, but any 'poll' or 'information' like this that shows one of the candidates as answering 'yes' to everything is just a little too blatant.

Three guesses as to who the AFA is sponsoring. :rolleyes:


This site (http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm) has a little more balanced perspective of the candidates' stances on all the issues.


-Elgalad

[Suzie]

"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' –– which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/) because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.
"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro-homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.
The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/) December 16 with Tim Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?
<o></o>GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.
<o></o>MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.
<o></o>GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/85505174.html

Seems like he "changed in that regard" on a lot of things when he decided to run for president. Just wait till he gets elected and "sides with Ted"

[SunnyBrook]

I really am not sure yet who I'm supporting if it comes down to Romney or McCain, but I've been leaning Romney. I was just thinking, however, that with Teddy Kennedy advising Obama, Romney would have his hands full, because Kennedy knows Romney and knows his weaknesses.

[Lazarus]

Please people, don't get cought up in this trap...

This is a snapshot opinion by an activist group with NO details to support their "ratings"... They put on a label that says "American Family Association" and we're supposed to autiomatically believe they as the crusaders and righteous watchdogs of OUR traditional values...

Don't let activists do your thinking for you... Study the candidates and listen to what THEY say - look at THEY'RE records - Use you heads and decide for yourselves...

ALL ACTIVISTS have an agenda to grind and ALL ACTIVISTS are ultimately driven by a lust to wield power over other people...

[Suzie]

Can you show us something that shows it isn't true Laz? I am trying to find it but I can't. When I read this I started looking, Christian websites have links and you can actually watch the exchange on youtube that he had on meet the press posted above. You can see the words come out of his mouth.

I tried to convince myself I could support Romney but on social issues he is WAY to the left of McCain and has been all his career at least up until he ran for president.

The AFA is a Christian organization, I subscribe to their newsletter. They give lots of information I have always found to be correct. But if you can show me where they are wrong this time I will read it, because I sure can't find anything that proves that myself. I can find where Romney said one thing .... then another. But it's that way with every word that comes out of his mouth, and that's why I can't trust him.

Romney is and has been a supporter of Ted Kennedy's ENDA. He even has people from his own Mormon faith against him on that one. http://mormonsagainstromney.blogspot.com/2006/12/more-than-kennedy-on-gay-rights.html

[Lazarus]

I have a better idea, Sooz... Why don't you ask THEM to prove their own accusations... Because in a nation where the rule of law is "Innocent until proven guilty", these people are passing jusdgement on these candidates with no evidence or details to support their assessments... They are betting on our acceptance of their reputation as all the evidence they need to provide...

These snapshot opinions are always flawed especially when related to some piece of legistlation and whether a politician supports it or not... Choose any item on their list and read the very brief description of that the legistlation pertained to...
Do you know everything that was in that bill?
Do you know all the peripheral riders and attachments and details that might be a deal breaker but wasn't cited or revealed by the activists?
Do you even KNOW for a fact that their description of the bill in question was in fact an accurate description of the legistlation?

We've already seen Fred Thompson attacked early in this race because he voted against some bills that on the surface and according to some activists should have been the right bill to vote for - But Fred voted against them because of dangerous, hidden clauses and riders that the Left attached to the bill...

I don't know what's in these bills - I don't know the details... All I see is an activist organization who is telling me to trust them... And I've never seen any activist watchdog group who didn't put their own spin on every piece of legistlation they championed or opposed...

I don't know these people, but I know activism when I see it... And I don't let activists do my thinking for me... By definition, activists have an axe to grind, and those axes always end up chopping thru some freedom we enjoy... Nothing is ever Black and White when it comes to legistlation - Its all cloak and dagger and if we let others do our thinking for us, we are at fault for being the cattle they think we are...

If you trust them, then by all means, use their opinions as a basis for your voting decision... I choose to do my own research... I will not be the puppet of activists...

[Suzie]

Laz honey I love ya you know that, but I don't have to ask them. I have seen what he has said himself. I am SERIOUSLY afraid he is worse than McCain and I don't want to see this cave in on us.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a9IJUkYUbvI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a9IJUkYUbvI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Rhino]

You have to be careful of this kind of stuff. The top row says Romney does not support a national Human Life Amendment. Technically, that's correct. Fred didn't support one either, because he thought it should be in the hands of the states, not the federal government. Where does AFA get this from?

Kleinheider: On the issue of abortion I was wondering do you support just the repeal of Roe v. Wade or do you support a human life amendment? What steps are you prepared to take?

ROMNEY: Here’s my view, and that is that the Supreme Court should over time to allow states to have more influence over their decisions on abortion. I am not calling for a nationwide ban of abortion. What I am calling for is for states to have their choice.http://race42008.com/2007/11/16/mitt-romney-on-human-life-amendment-3-06-2007/

Not exactly the way they make it sound, is it?

Row number 2, that he supposedly does not oppose laws forcing business to favor homosexuality, i.e. that he supports laws to grant homosexual special status in the workplace. They provide three links to support that conclusion.

Link 1:
On whether he’d go beyond merely accepting gay people and advocating for the rights of lesbians and gay men:

“The answer is yes. When I speak of free agency, I don’t just mean that each person can do what they want to do, I mean that our society should allow people to make their own choices and live by their own beliefs. People of integrity don’t force their beliefs on others, they make sure that others can live by different beliefs they may have. That’s the great thing about this country: it was founded to allow people to follow beliefs of their own conscience. I will work and have worked to fight discrimination and to assure each American equal opportunity. You’ll see that, for instance, in my relations in the workplace. …

“For a number of years, I was chief executive at Bain and Co. It’s an environment that fosters openness and fights discrimination. I believe it is a good place for gay and lesbian individuals to work. I know of nothing in our workplace that doesn’t encourage promotion and compensation based on performance, without regard to personal differences, such as sexual orientation. I believe that my record, my life, is a clear indication of my support and insistence on anti-discrimination and on efforts to assure equal rights for all.”http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/12/romneys_thought.html

That means he opposes discrimination, not that that he supports laws to grant homosexual special status in the workplace. Again, not how AFA makes it sound.

Link 2 is pretty much verbatim the same as link 1, and it mentions that he supported Barney Frank's Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which basically said you couldn't discriminate in hiring based on sexual orientation. That bill exempted religious organizations from the requirements, and defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So again, not as AFA depicts it.
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53688

Link 3 is pretty much the same thing, but with less detail.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/6/

Row 6, gay pride, is pretty much true.

Row number 8, that he supposedly does not oppose curriculum that promotes homosexuality. They provide three links to support that conclusion.

Link1:
BW: Speaking of Helms, I wanted to ask you how you would have voted on an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that would ban federal funds from public schools which are "encouraging or supporting homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative."
MR: I would have opposed that amendment. I don’t think the federal government has any business dictating to local school boards what their curriculum or practices should be. I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed and unfortunate and hurts the party by being identified with the Republican party.http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53688

Not so much that he opposes it, but he thinks it isn't the fed's business. I think he's wrong about the last part though, at least as it applies to some in the 'gay community'. But yet again, this isn't how AFA depicts the issue.

Link 2 does not mention school curriculum at all.
http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=columnists&sc=the_romney_files&sc2=&sc3=&id=53674

Link 3 is a hit piece by MassResistance. It never actually mentions curriculum, but it does cite pro-gay materials being given to schools by the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. That commission was established before Romney took office. The main problem MassResistance seems to have is that he didn't abolish it.
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/

1. Make up your own mind, based on what is important to you, but supported by full and complete facts.

2. Partisan sites are almost never going to provide an objective view of candidates.

3. Position 'statements' on the issues are almost never going to be accurate when they are limited to a few sentences or so. Those limited to simple 'yes' or 'no's, like this one, are guaranteed to be inaccurate. Choose whomever you want, based on your own criteria, but please try to do it based on facts.

[Suzie]

I just don't buy that someone has some big catharsis the moment they decide to run for president. If you look at what HE HAS SAID not what someone writes about him he is as left as Rudy if not more so.

I just don't want to see us accept someone worse than all the others just because we have hated the others longer.

[Jack_Savage]

The one thing about McCain that is puzzling is why the entire Soros team likes him so much. Why they want him to be the nominee. Is it because they truly like him as with his connection to Kerry or because they believe him to be an easy opponent to run against?

[Plain Old Dave]

You have to be careful of this kind of stuff. The top row says Romney does not support a national Human Life Amendment. Technically, that's correct. Fred didn't support one either, because he thought it should be in the hands of the states, not the federal government. Where does AFA get this from?

http://race42008.com/2007/11/16/mitt-romney-on-human-life-amendment-3-06-2007/

Not exactly the way they make it sound, is it?

Here is another problem I had with Thompson; "pro-choice" vs. "let the states decide" is a distinction without a difference. Either one is pro-life or one is NOT pro-life. Between his support of the Abortionist Protection Act (McCain-Feingold) and that mealy-mouthing the Right To Life issue, it was pretty clear to me where Thompson (and Romney) stand on this issue.

Question: Which part of no state shall deny any person life, liberty, or property without due process of law is so hard to understand?