Mitt Romney in '08?

Just to make sure I put a post up on the blog to cover it, Mitt Romney announced a few days ago that he would seek the Republican nomination for president in 2008. I don’t know a whole lot about Mitt Romney. He has not been a name that I have covered a lot in my political travels. What I do know from news articles and word of mouth is:

1. He is a former governor of Massachusetts
2. He is “a successful venture capitalist who amassed a fortune”
3. The “ ‘savior’ of the scandal-plagued 2002 Winter Olympic Games”
4. He has been married to his wife Ann since 1969, and have five married sons and 10 grandchildren.
5. “As governor of Massachusetts, Romney was credited with closing a $3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes and pushing a comprehensive overhaul of health insurance system" in his state.
6. If elected, he would be the first Mormon elected to the presidency.

I know it sounds bad, but this is how I feel; presidential or congressional candidates who calls themselves a “conservative” and come from further north than Virginia sets red flags off in my mind – especially Massachusetts. I think, with the exception of Rick Santorum, I can’t think of very many politicians on the Republican side that would fit the Reagan mold. For clarity, this is what I would consider true conservativism:

-Pro-life
-Anti-Affirmative Action
-Pro-equal rights
-Pro-Second Amendment
-Pro-limited government
-Pro-low taxation
-Pro-military and national defense
-Pro-flag and strong American national identity
-Recognize the Bible as the foundation of American law, government, and society
-Recognize marriage as only between one man and one woman.
-Strong border security and enforcement of immigration laws
-Pro-capitalism
-Anti-trade deficit, Pro-domestic manufacturing
-Fair, strong law enforcement and judicial system

That’s the prism that I look at he world through. And that’s what I am looking for when I look at the votes OVER TIME of a candidate who wants to have my vote. Now I will add that once I get to the state and local level, I can give lee-way on a few items, but I never deviate far from these “rules of thumb.”

Now, a couple of things in this article caught my attention (and caused red flags.) First, was his statement that Abroad, he called on the United States ot “regain its standing in the world and he called for the United States' role to be defined not only in terms of military might but also by its willingness to lead, serve and share.” What does that mean? We are the leader of the free world, already. We serve the world already. We sent military ships with aid to Indonesia and other countries after the tsunami – a partially Islamic country that hated us before our aid and still does after our ships have left. We take the surplus of crops that we grow and sell and/or give them to other countries in the name of “humanitarian aid.” We prop up entire countries with monetary support and military aid, and even house and fund the United Nations, a despotic, anti-American and anti-Semitic organization if there ever was one.

Other areas of concern for me are his letter During his Senate run again Ted Kennedy where he “[promised] a gay Republican group he would be a stronger advocate for gays and their rights than Kennedy” and his statement that “regardless of personal beliefs, abortion should be safe and legal.” All of these positions are in contrast to what he is saying now, so I ask, which version do we believe?

Anyone with any more details, answers, or examples, both good and bad post them. We need this information to make a clear decision, and, so far, not a lot by the way of deeds have been forthcoming to give him the benefit of the doubt.