Posted on 11/15/2007 8:22:11 AM PST by jaybeegee
The Romney campaign may be disappointed because they didn’t get the endorsement from National Right to Life but maybe the organization had a look at the following videotape. If you go about three and a half minutes in, Romney is seen distancing himself from being endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life during a debate while he was running for Governor in 2002. He didn’t want any part of that endorsement at the time. Watch the video here.
This video has been out before but I bring it up because in it, he’s speaking directly to the endorsement issue and arguing vigorously against it. This is what is known as "political baggage". It also speaks directly to why Romney has some problems with pro-lifers, especially at the grassroots level. For them, it’s not that he was pro-choice. It’s that he argued so forcefully for the position. I know he has some big pro-life names behind him (Paul Weyrich, James Bopp, Jim Talent, and many more) but his recent conversion simply bothers some. That’s a pretty big reason why some key Evangelical leaders haven’t come out and endorsed him.
Romney wants so bad to be the clear choice for social conservatives but it hasn’t been so simple. Fred Thompson’s endorsement is a slap in the face and Huckabee’s surge in Iowa WITHOUT any TV advertising is another signal too that Romney still has some work to do.
----end excerpt----
Referenced Romney video here
How can this be? I’ve been told that Thompson “bought” the endorsement and that I’m an anti-Mormon bigot for saying otherwise.
Evangelical leaders can occasionally be naive. They are used to the idea of people saying that they have seen the light. They are used to the idea of conversion, of being born again.
Those are all genuine experiences, when the grace of God is at work. But there are always people willing to fake it.
In a private situation, if someone says he has found Jesus, you would generally take his word for it until proven differently. By their fruits you shall know them, but sometimes it takes a while for the fruits to reveal themselves.
That’s my reading. It’s not even that they are naive. But they fail to distinguish between giving the benefit of the doubt in a personal case, and giving the benefit of the doubt to a POLITICIAN, whose very profession is to persuade people to support him. More than that, it doesn’t matter so much if an individual is faking it. Nothing is lost but his own soul. But if a politician fakes it, then the whole country is in trouble if you read him wrong.
Even worse with Pat Robertson endorsing Giuliani. I don’t know what got into him. There’s no room for naivite when you are dealing with 50 million dead and maybe another 50 million to go if Giuliani gets nominated.
Give me an A... give me a B... give me an ORT... give me I... give me an O... give me an big ole N... what’s that spell?
LLS
I'm not happy with Fred's - it's not a federal issue - position. I think it IS and he should support a Constitutional Ammendment (as Huckabee does)
Thoughts...?
The NRLC said part of their calculation was which pro-life candidate has the best chance to win. Huckabee is unelectable.
Some Mitt supporters feel that the NRTL shortchanged themselves, Fred Thompson has only one position on the prolife question, Romney has double that number. lol
Dear God.....HOW can he claim a prolife record? HOW?
Underbid? /sarcasm
Bit of a mistatement on Fred.
It’s more like “Roe v. Wade needs to be reversed, then work from there — because I don’t think we can muster up enough support for the Human Life Amendment.”
If Mitt decrees it, it is so.
Do not doubt him.
s/
Its not going to happen, at least not in the next ten years.
Now roe v. wade can be overturned.
Fred supports what is doable.
Great catch!
How does his past disqualify him from being a Christian?
Huckabee claiming to support a constitutional amendment is the worst form of pandering. It is never going to happen and he knows it. We need solutions now. Judges are the big problem.
My guess: Because it takes more to be considered “Pro-Life” than just saying that you are pro-life repeatedly and having nice hair.
Thanks for the laugh : )
Or was that Pro Choiceish....
It’s hard to tell...
Huckabee doesn’t “claim” to support a Human Life Amendment.
He does support a Human Life Amendment.
Are you suggesting that supporting a Human Life Amendment means a candidate is against appointing pro-life judges?
Obviously, it’ not an either-or choice.
If you support protecting prenatal life in ALL 50 STATES, you:
Support overturning Roe.
You appoint pro-life justices.
AND...
You support a Human Life Amendment.
“I’m not happy with Fred’s - it’s not a federal issue - position. I think it IS and he should support a Constitutional Ammendment (as Huckabee does)”
Fred is a Federalist, and murder is part of a State’s portfolio of powers, there is no federal law against murder. So the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe vs. Wade was an example of a Federal branch exceeding its powers.
A constitutional amendment banning abortion is the nuclear option, and is impossible to achieve under the present political conditions. But because it’s simple and easy to see it will work, the simple minded among us have focused on it to the exclusion of any other options that could actually work.
Millions of the unborn are dying every year and we are morally obligated to save as many as we can. By failing to recognize the reality of the situation and changing our strategy, we become complicit in their deaths. If we start small, at the state and local level, as the anti-smoking campaign did, we can begin to save thousands of lives NOW.
Changes to the Supreme Court plus State and Local abortion laws challenged all the way to the Supreme Court, could eventually cause the over ruling of Roe vs. Wade based on Federalist principles.
Fred is right, and is leading the way; all we must do is follow.
**it’s not a federal issue - position.**
Ever hear of Roe vs. Wade?
Want to retract your statement?
Willard the Weather Vane
LOL
The President has zero constitutional role in the amendment process. None. Supporting it is irrelevant. So is opposing it.
You Can't Trust Mitt Part 1:Abortion
That's gonna leave a mark. :=)
Do you happen to have links to the other part (or parts) of this?
I think its very telling that neither Huckabee nor Romney got it.
Do you really think that Romney supporters don't know that he had made non ProLife statements in the past??
We just believe that people can and should change their positions.
And if they do side with conservative causes, it is unseemly to call them names and throw a tantrum.
GWB's father GHWBush was pro-abortion in 1980 when he ran for President, but then changed to ProLife when selected for VP, and again as POTUS from 1988-1992.
Many people change, and get more conservative as they get older and delve into issues.
That is a GOOD thing.
Haven’t seen Part II yet.
A work in process, I’d guess.
A work in process, I’d guess.
I certainly hope so. Part 1 was devastating for the MittBots' claims regarding 'pro-life' Mitt.
My statement: I'm not happy with Fred's - it's not a federal issue - position. I think it IS and he should support a Constitutional Ammendment (as Huckabee does)
My answer: No. Ask Fred.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.