Posted on 05/26/2005 6:23:10 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has hinted that he’s shifted his position on abortion since his first run for public office, when he pledged to keep abortion "safe and legal in this country.”
"Understand, over time one’s perspective changes somewhat,” Romney told USA Today. "I’m in a different place than I was probably in 1994, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, in my own views on that.”
He added: "I’m personally pro-life.”
Julie Teer, the Republican governor’s spokeswoman, wouldn’t explain how Romney’s stance has changed, saying only that it has "evolved over time.”
But his remarks were seen by observers of the abortion debate as an indication he would shift to the right on the issue if he decides to seek the Republication nomination for president in 2008.
That would make him more attractive to conservative voters in primaries outside Massachusetts.
Back in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate against Kennedy, he declared in a debate: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.”
But in recent months, Romney has "played up his personal opposition to abortion in out-of-state speeches,” according to the Boston Globe.
That concerns Angus McQuilken, public affairs director for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, who said: "It’s just not credible to have one set of values when it comes to Massachusetts and another set when you decide you’re going to present yourself to the voters nationally.”
In the past few months Romney has also removed a reference to Roe vs. Wade from a proclamation celebrating access to birth control, and refused to publicly support a measure expanding access to emergency contraception.
But some pro-life supporters think he hasn’t gone far enough. Romney "is going to have to do a lot more convincing” if he hopes to win the votes of social conservatives, Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council told The Boston Globe.
"For a lot of people, especially Christian conservatives, it’s one of those black and white issue. You’re either pro-life or not. That’s the trouble with Governor Romney – he’s gray.”
But if Romney is uncomfortable with his previous abortion policy and how it would play out in a national election, he doesn’t feel that his support for stem cell research will hurt him with conservative voters if he runs for president.
Romney is in favor of using leftover embryos from fertility clinics for research. President Bush opposes that use.
Romney said he "can’t imagine politics or ambition” would stand in the way of doing what anyone thinks "is right for the family of humankind on an issue like this.”
As someone who's gone from being pro-choice to pro-life, I understand that views can change. But this certainly smacks of political opportunism, as Romney moves from appealing to Massachusetts voters to appealing to Republican primary voters.
Yup, me too.
ALL OF THEM are like that. Wait - this is just the beginning. All politicians pander back and forth to garner support and votes. Makes you wonder if they say they are pro-life they are really telling the truth or just pandering to the far right and vice-versa for pro-choice and the left. Hence - that is why we should follow the rules of my tag line! ;-)
Yes, but unfortunately, that is the only way anything is going to get done on this. The politicians represent the people. The people are going to have to do the heavy lifting. If the people demand action on abortion, the politicians will follow.
I actually give Romney high marks, even though I've always thought of him as a RINO. He's got a Clintonesque strategy in that Clinton spent years in Arkansas, and no one seemed to realize that he was a far leftwing nutcase. When he got into trouble in Washington, he morphed back into his prior disguise in order to prevent the GOP from beating him, but he remained at heart a liberal Democrat, and spent another 4 years impressing our government with the liberal image.
Romney might be doing the same thing, except in reverse. He may be trying to impress our government with a conservative image.
Of course, we don't really know which is the real Mitt Romney, and we may not unless and until he's President.
Perhaps the socialist contagion endemic of the NE has penetrated the abstraction layer of his handlers and he has been given a new script.
Finally, an issue on which I can agree with Planned Parenthood.
Clinton's not a far-left nutcase. He's been fairly liberal in his inclinations and political positions, but to be 'far-left' implies some personal commitment to the cause that simply isn't there. Clinton is committed only to himself, not to any ideology. He doesn't care that much about policies, as long as he's getting glory and praise. If Republicans had been in control of Arkansas in the 1970s & 80s, then he'd probably be one.
Hillary, on the other hand, is actually liberal, though she has also picked up Bill's vain powerlust that allows her to compromise her liberal principles when she thinks it's to her advantage.
Agreed. I'd like to know why he's changed his views. For instance, did his wife have their first child after 1994? Is he a born-again Christian?
And, most important, if he's "personally pro-life" but unwilling to act on it as a public official, then what good would it do to vote for him?
Anyone who proposes to socialize the healthcare industry is a far left nutcase. The fact that he backs off when he sees the writing on the wall doesn't persuade me otherwise.
He's LDS.
I hope nobody buys this chump.
He's just trying to change his Rino spots in time for the election that he has absolutely no business entering.
Usually, the "they" is followed by "personally," as the politician goes on to defend not advocating change of the law.
I don't give a whit where they personally stand. I want to hear what they are going to do on issues.
He needs to get some face time and positive exposure.
Someone please tell Romney this may play in Mass., but it will not fly in the red states.
Oh watch - he'll change his stance just before he announces he's running.
Not necessarily so. Maybe Romney has conservative views, but was pretending to be a "moderate" since he is Gov. of Mass. and had to be a "moderate" in order to get elected. You really can't tell which it is unfortunately.
And you might think that is a reason in itself to vote against him, but on the other hand, a politician who has complete consistency in his ideology may not be electible in the US anymore.
It's been a long time since Reagan was President, and the country's changed a lot since then. People vote on the party line these days, and there is only about a 1 or 2 percent difference in party affiliation, at best.
When we're talking about abortion, there is really only one input that the President has anyway. He can appoint conservative Supreme Court justices. So the only thing you really need to ask is who will Romney appoint to the Supreme Court? Aside from that, what he actually says or thinks about abortion itself may be irrelevant.
That's why they are called politicans. Less and less are they being referred to as leaders or legislators or representatives.
pol·i·tic
1 : characterized by shrewdness in managing, contriving, or dealing
2 : sagacious in promoting a policy
3 : shrewdly tactful
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.