Posted on 08/26/2006 2:18:58 PM PDT by Jeff Fuller
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10274
Things are looking up for Mitt Romney. Not only has the outgoing Massachusetts governor been getting reasonably favorable press from usually hostile places but, courtesy of George Allen's Macaca moment, his position in the 2008 Republican presidential field suddenly looks more secure -- the most viable candidate to the right of front-runners John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
Romney appears to sense the opportunity . . . (READ ON at the link above)
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Still waiting to hear where this article has been posted before here on FR. I can't find if for the life of me. I'd like the link and to find out how I can avoid double-posting.
On Kerry . . . show me his "pro-life" voting record. Romney has a "pro-life" voting record. NARAL says Romney is "Anti-choice." Hard to argue with that.
Yeah. Because it's normal for Romney's positions to completely change over four years.
Lord only knows what Mitt will be supporting in 2010!!!! (It probably depends who he's pandering to at the time.)
LOL!
The trolls around here don't argue, the emote.
I don't think you want to get into a history of Romney's cozy courtship of NARAL.
''He's very careful to say that he's not going to change the status quo . . . but in his questionnaire he filled out for us, he really went beyond the status quo," said Melissa Kogut, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. ''He made commitments on a range of issues."
Obviously Mitt isn't as much of an extremist as NARAL usually likes, and they're mad at him for waffling on his pro-abortion dedication since he decided he's not running for reelection and has a new audience to pander to, but they probably have some good blackmail tapes of Mitt kissing some serious NARAL butt.
Romney's running mate, Kerry Healey, buttressed that idea by saying, ''There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and Shannon O'Brien," who was an outspoken advocate for abortion rights.
It's all context. Show me the statement that Romney calls himself "pro-choice". I'll show you a kazillion dating back to the 90's where he's said he's "pro-life". All the quotes people bring up don't mention that nearly all of them are preceded by his personal stance of being "pro-life". It's just a reality of MA politics that NO POLITICIAN can run as a pro-life crusader. Romney shelved the issue for voters but had to make some "pro-choicy" statements to pacify the liberal public wary of a Mormon Republican wanting to be their governor. Romney is a pragmatist and shelving the abortion issue was a pragmatic approach. Otherwise, you'd have the Democrat as the MA GOV. who WAS RUNNING on a platform to EXPAND abortion rights. Romney was the pro-life choice among the two back in 2002.
Do you criticize Reagan and Bush 41 for being "converts" to being "pro-life politicians"? Some will never be convinced . . . but what matters most is that I believe Romney when he says he's "pro-life". I think he will convince the electorate as well.
Oh yeah. "Personally pro-life." Like other prominent pro-aborts, such as Cuomo, Kerry, Clinton. Basically it means that they won't have an abortion themselves. Empty rhetoric.
Republicans in blue states have to say a lot of things to get elected they would not say if running in a red state. I don't have to tell you that cities like San Francisco, Chicago, NYC and so forth are infested with hippies, racists, feminists, socialists, and other vermin that make it difficult for right-minded people to win.
If someone like Romney is willing to give us the judges we want, then the hype about him not being pure on social issues is irrelevant.
The circular firing-squad crap is something the DUmmies do. If you don't like Romney and think Tancredo or whoever who support is the best thing ever, then spend more time doing good instead of being a cancer.
Sorry FRiend, but that is a complete falsehood!
It would almost be worth seeing him win, just to watch you give birth to a cow here.
JohnnyZ,
I just went to your FR homepage and your whole purpose on this site seems to be to trash Romney. I can understand you not liking him or his positions . . . but to be so devoted to destroy someone? Please explain . . .
I'd like to hear what has evoked such passion. I've explained why I like Romney, disclosed my profession and past, and answered your questions (still waiting to hear back from you on a couple). Now it's your turn. Come forward and explain why someone who apparently has never met or been governed by Romney (you live in N.C.?) has such a strong passion against him. What is your profession? ("Anti-Romney crusader" doens't count). I think it's better to support a candidate than to pick one to trash. Who do you want as your next POTUS?
Are you a Mormon?
I have noticed that Mitt's biggest supporters are fellow Mormons. Why is that?
The fact that so many mormons are pushing Mitt Romney is a bit unnerving and well, just weird.
Dear Jeff Fuller,
"It's all context."
Yes, it's all context. And the context is that up until last year, Mr. Romney was on record as supporting the "right" of women to choose abortions, in spite of his personal feelings.
"It's just a reality of MA politics that NO POLITICIAN can run as a pro-life crusader."
I understand. However, Mr. Romney could have said in 2002 (and previously), "I personally believe that our laws should protect unborn human beings. I do not read of a 'right' to abortion anywhere in the Constitution. However, I will support the laws that we have now, and in that the electorate of Massachusetts is clearly pro-choice, I will do nothing to alter our laws."
Instead, he said:
"I RESPECT and will protect a woman's right to choose. . . . Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."
Thus, what he said wasn't that this is something that should be settled on a local basis. Rather, what he said is that he respects a woman's "right to choose." In acknowledging this "right," Mr. Romney, at least at the time he said it, forfeited any pro-life credentials.
"Do you criticize Reagan and Bush 41 for being 'converts' to being 'pro-life politicians'?"
In Mr. Reagan's case, he actually expressed anguish for his actions as governor of California. That expression of anguish is an expression of repentance, which includes an acknowledgement that one has done wrong previously.
Let me know if Mr. Romney repents, rather than merely turns on a dime, as he deems politically necessary.
I was iffy on Mr. Bush immediately after his "conversion" in 1980. But I didn't have to vote for him for president for another eight years, and he gave every evidence of having truly changed his views. I believe Mr. Romney made this change in 2005. Perhaps he might get back to us in 2013 so we can further evaluate his record AND his rhetoric.
In any event, a four year-old quote is hardly so old that it is no longer relevant. It's wrong to criticize JohnnyZ for using a quote that's only four years old.
sitetest
He serial trasher of GOP candidates he deems "unworthy."
Boston Globe is truly a definitive source. Who would Boston Globe back as a presidential nominee? Did they back Mitt Romney for Gov.?
Holy smokes!
I read some of your old posts.
You only visit FR to push Romney!
There is really more to FR than Romney!
Its not about "theological disagreements"
Its about the truth that can save a soul
Evangelicals will NOT vote for someone involved in a deceptive cult that has people in bondage to a false "works based gospel of a man"
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.