There, I've said it three times while standing on a dead chicken and waving three cats above my head.... it's true!
Posted on 02/24/2005 8:54:29 AM PST by advance_copy
Anti-abortion activists chided Gov. Mitt Romney yesterday for his new, self-attached ``pro-life'' label, saying efforts to appeal to conservatives are in vain because his position mirrors that of liberal Democrat Sen. John F. Kerry.
``No offense to the people of Massachusetts but, within the pro-life movement, when a Massachusetts politician says he is personally pro-life, warning bells go off,'' said Tom McClusky, director of government affairs at the conservative Family Research Council. ``That's the exact same thing John Kerry [related, bio] says.''
Added Carol Tobias, political director for the National Right to Life Committee: ``John Kerry said that he was personally opposed to abortion but wouldn't do anything to stop it. Mitt Romney's position doesn't seem any different.''
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
I think there's a huge distinction to be made between a politician who is a phony Catholic and one who is a devout Mormon.
I have a feeling abortion isn't going to be a big issue in 2008. When the Repubs are going up against HRC, I think an "Anybody But HRC" mentality will sweep away a lot of nuance.
There, I've said it three times while standing on a dead chicken and waving three cats above my head.... it's true!
I can't see a Mormon winning the Bible Belt.
Unfortunately, I think you may be correct in that assessment.
What is so "devout" about supporting baby-killing?
I can....one sure beats a lapsed Catholic
I agree. Isn't it ironic that Utah voted for Bush 70%...the reddest of the red? And Clinton actually finished third in popular votes in '92. Yet, Romney seems to have no real prospects for presidency because he shares Utah's predominant religion. Go figure.
Romney is as pro-life as Hillary Rodham-Stalin.
The activists who are demanding he adopt a full-throated opposition to the gruesome practice of abortion are ensuring that he will never be elected-or reelected-to any office in the near or remote future.
This is the same mentality that leads to retrospective criticism of Abraham Lincoln for not advocating full and complete racial equality in mid-19th Century, rural Illinois.
In an abstract, purely theoretical sense, you may be completely in the right.
However, in the non-Utopian world of political machinations and legislative compromises, this position is completely and utterly groundless.
Sad, but-most likely-true.
That's funny, I'm pretty sure Kerry said that he was a practicing Catholic, don't you trust him like you trust pro-abortion pro-life Romney?
Would the Bible-belt prefer HRC?
Then again if he was a solid pro-life candidate this wouldn't be an issue now would it?
Oh, now I get it!!! Devout Mormons are those who are against abortion when everybody else is against it, but are for abortion when everybody else is for it. And let me see . . . that would differentiate them from devout Catholics like the Kennedys in exactly what way?
That is complete bull. The only one ensuring Romney ain't gonna be reelected is Romney, running around playing at running for president -- as if he had a prayer in the world!!! ha ha! -- when he's trailing in the polls for his reelection, hasn't succeeded in building the state GOP, hasn't accomplished anything as governor.
The guy's a joke!
Religon has nothing to do with why Romney is unacceptable.
He is a fraud of a Rino.
Anti-gun, anti-life.
And pro-gay (except for marriage).
The grim truth is, and I have said it on FR before, is that the pro life movement has enjoyed a legacy marked mostly by failure since their huge loss in 1973. They never recovered and have been a fairly ineffective force since then when it comes to actual policy.
There are about 1.5 million abortions a year and at least some of the responsibility for that stunning figure rests at least partly with the pro life movement since 1973 - the issue in 1973 was if abortion should be legal in all 50 states or not. In 2004 the issue is whether the guardians of minors seeking abortions should be notified, and if late-term abortion should be legal.
Granted both issues are no-brainers and the consensus in the usa is on the right side of these two issues, but the fact that they are contentious issues tells you a lot: the pro life movement has been beaten so far back that they fight for their lives on what are, esentially, uncontrovertial issues.
The pro life leadership needs a housecleaning and a new strategy. What they have been doing isn't very effective - that much is clear to anybody with an ounce of clarity on the matter.
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.