If he changes policy based on Constitutional principles, he will be doing the
right thing. If he changes policy based on public pressure, he will continue to
tilt at windmills. When a man has taken an oath to uphold the
Constitution, he has no business worrying about what some people think of his
decision. Doing the right thing for the right reason shows
integrity.Doing the right thing for the wrong reason shows that the
man has no integrity.
Just a question, I wonder if Obama would have done this if he were in his 2nd
term and not facing re-election? Hmmmmmm...
'If he changes policy based on public pressure, he will continue to tilt at
windmills.' - Mike Richards | 8:04 a.m. Feb. 10, 2012 So, this is
'bad', right? **'Mitt Romney steers clear of Ohio health, union
issues' - By Dan Sewell - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/25/11
Then: **'Mitt Romney reverses himself, supports anti-union law' - By
Philip Elliott - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/26/11 'FAIRFAX, Va.
A day after he refused to endorse an Ohio ballot measure that limits public
employee union rights, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said
Wednesday that he is "110 percent" behind the effort.' article Time elapsed? 24 hours. Result?
**'Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits By Julie Carr Smyth AP
Published by Dsnews 11/08/11 Are you going to support Romney... Mike?
'Just a question, I wonder if Obama would have done this if he were in his 2nd
term and not facing re-election?' - m.g. scott | 8:09 a.m. Feb. 10, 2012 Ok. That's a question. What facts did you present? Here's one: **'...Romney Maintained Massachusetts Contraception
Requirement That Mirrors Obamas Rule' - By Igor Volsky - Think Progress -
02/07/12 'In 2002 the very same year Romney campaigned for governor
of Massachusetts the state enacted a contraceptive equity law that REQUIRED
insurers that provide outpatient benefits to cover hormone replacement therapy
and ALL FDA-approved contraceptive methods.' article Romney signed
almost the EXACT same requirement for birth control... in
MAssachusetts, in 2002.
Re:PaganSo if your point is that politicians play politics, I agree.
And I assume that you agree that Obama will play politics too. I just wonder
though that if he does get re-elected, will he then proceed to change the policy
to what he wanted it to be in the first place. That is something the voters who
strongly object to the policy need to consider, and a good question to be asked
of the President by the press or in debates.
'Re:Pagan So if your point is that politicians play politics, I agree. And
I assume that you agree that Obama will...' - m.g. scott | 8:30 a.m. Feb. 10,
2012 Ok. If you agree that politicians will be political.... why are you ONLY finding fault with Obama... through
hypotheticals? I have GIVEN an exmaple of Romney changing his
stances on issues. While you, present zero information on 'Obama
policies.' Here's one: **'Obama marks Iraq wars end with
salute to troops' - by Erica Werner - AP - Published by DSNews - 12/14/11 This, is also.... what the voters, need to consider.
Backs down again! Amazing! Did he not think religious entities would have a
problem with this in the first place? M.G. most likely has it right: This
could be a political disaster for reelection, so better to flip or flop than to
stick with a position.
This is not a victory for religion, not a victory for Catholics, not a victory
for the American people, this is a victory for business.And another
nail in the coffin of the United States of America. If a business
can exempt itself from law by pretending religion, if corporations are people,
if business is able to elect people to government to remove regulations and
rules for business, the American experiment is dead.
Pagan,Mr. Romney is not the President. He has NOT signed into law
anything that is unconstitutional. He has NOT violated his oath of office to
uphold the Constitution. Mr. Obama has. That is the issue. Until
Mr. Romney takes that oath of office, he can do anything he wants. He can say
anything he wants. He, just like you and me, has that right. He is not bound by
an oath of office - yet. When Romney IS President, we can discuss his
performance. Until then, Mr. Obama is the man that we need to watch.
Re: PaganI don't only find fault with Obama, it is just that he is
the current President, and I will be voting against him. If I had been posting
when Bush was President, you would have read a lot from me about how misguided I
thought his two 10 year long wars were. Particularly Iraq. Once we secured the
country from WMD, we should have left. One of the things that I thought was
going to be good when Obama was elected was that we would get out of the
Middle-East wars. He waited too long on Iraq, and still has us in Afghanistan.
And he has not closed Gitmo, like he promised. I frankly think Gitmo needs to
remain open to keep the bad guys there, but Obama did promise your side he would
close it. How's that worked out? Maybe you don't take as critical a look at
your guy as you do our guys. Or, do you think Obama has done everything right?