Mitt's Evangelical Breakthrough

The American Spectator ^ | 8/25/06 | W. James Antle III

[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)

[Radix]

I watched the Governor campaign in Massachusetts very carefully in 2002.

Mitt's opponent lived in the next town over from me back then, and that woman was related to a neighbor of mine. Blah blah blah.

Mitt Romney was clear on every occasion when the matter came up that he did not support abortion personally.

He was also clear that he was not going to undermine existing law in this state.

Perhaps that is walking a tightrope, but your quote is inaccurate.

[sitetest]

Dear Radix,

JohnnyZ bases his assertion at least in part on this quote:

"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."

It was reported by the Boston Globe and attributed as a direct quote from Mr. Romney.

These are the words of a pro-abort.

If you believe that the quote is false, I'd appreciate the evidence you might present against its accuracy.


sitetest

[Radix]

 

 

I am not pro-abortion.

 

I am not a Mormon.

 

I am not particularly interested in Mitt Romney becoming President, until after I consider the alternatives.

 

I do not understand this fundamentalist position that one must be an anti abortionist in order to qualify as a Christian. It is simply not supported by the text.  That is, abortion is not murder as the penalty for murder is expressed elsewhere in the text.

 

KJV:  Exodus 21:22

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

 ....... Exodus 21

[Semus Dynnen]

Even the Boston Herald has it in for him, and they regularly slam him. One expects that from the Globe, but the Herald's attitude is confounding to this particular citizen.

McCain is the Herald's boy. They know that Romney is a threat to McCain's run.

They endorsed McCain in 00 and will do so again in 08.

With is in mind, the Herald takes every opportunity to attack Mitt and his record.

[Miss Marple]

Hi, Jeff.

I am a Roman Catholic, so no one can accuse me of being pro-Romney because of my faith.

I think Romney is a pretty good candidate. His lack of scandal in his personal life is a decided plus. He also has his record in saving the Olympics and his electability to make him someone who Republican voters should consider.

I don't yet have a favorite in the primaries, but I think people underestimate Romney's appeal.

[sitetest]

Dear Radix,

And this is relevant to Mr. Romney's previous history as an outright pro-abort.... how??


sitetest

[Radix]

I am not claiming that any quote is false.

I will claim that I live here in this retarded place/state, and Mitt Romney is the only candidate to actually win an election that I had a vote in. Well, W is one other exception.

My guys never win anything.

I would not give the guy my vote if I thought that he were what JohhnyZ is implying. Indeed Johhny, is almost obsessed with despising Romney out loud. It seems so from here.

Mitt is a good guy. I recall watching him in the debate with Kennedy back in 1994. My 13 year old son and I were doing high fives whenever Mitt slammed the fat bastard Teddy.

Mitt lost that race, and our hopes diminished. The 1992 Governor race was very close here. Mitt almost lost.

The media, and every union, and Social activist has gone out of their way to make the man look bad. That is the stuff that you are reading. Mitt ain't a RINO on the order of a Rudy, or a McCain, or the others. It simply ain't so.

The little high fiver went on to be a Captain in the Army, and he regularly tells his friends and family things about what really happens in Iraq. He also is proof to me that the Democrat Party in this country, is doomed.

I see it in his friends, and in my own.

[Radix]

He is not pro abortion.

He has said so many times.

This is getting to be just a bit too redundant for me.

And besides, the same old stuff keeps getting said.

Good night.

[sitetest]

Dear Radix,

At least up until very recently, Mr. Romney was fundamentally a pro-abort. He stated that there was a "right" to abort babies, and he stated that he would protect that right.

Now, Mr. Romney would like to wear the mantle of being pro-life. He apparently has taken some pro-life actions around the fringes of the issue, much as many pro-deathers have tried to straddle the issue by being for parental notification, or against government funding of abortions for the poor, etc.

However, it is entirely fair to portray Mr. Romney as a fundamental pro-deather, at least up until his alleged "conversion experience."

I've watched the video suggested by Jeff Fuller. I'll have to think on it, but frankly, by itself, it's very thin gruel. It doesn't really persuade me, by itself, that Mr. Romney is now an ardent supporter of the right to life of unborn children.

"Mitt ain't a RINO on the order of a Rudy, or a McCain, or the others."

I don't really think that Mr. McCain is a RINO. He's actually a moderately conservative fellow. He likes to also characterize himself as a "maverick." Frankly, I think he's more of a bit of a nut than a RINO. And he's positively off the reservation concerning the First Amendment.

In any event, I notice that you say that Mr. Romney isn't a RINO on the order of Mr. Giuliani or Mr. McCain. For the sake of argument, I'll allow that Mr. McCain is a RINO.

It appears that you aren't exactly denying that Mr. Romney isn't a RINO, only that he isn't as bad as Mr. Giuliani or Mr. McCain.

That's hardly a good reason to vote for him.


sitetest

[Radix]

2002 election not 1992....

Lets nail it down........




FR needs an edit feature.

[sitetest]

Dear Radix,

"He is not pro abortion."

Really?? What does this quote mean, then??

"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."

Or are you one of those folks who distinguishes between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion."

Real conservatives understand that "pro-choice" IS pro-abortion.


sitetest

[Radix]

"That's hardly a good reason to vote for him."

LoL!

Of course you are right, except, you do not live in Massachusetts.

I really do have to get up at oh dark thirty. Have a great week end.

[sitetest]

Dear Radix,

"Of course you are right, except, you do not live in Massachusetts."

Neither does 97% of the rest of America.

That might be a problem for Mr. Romney.

Good night.


sitetest

[JHBowden]

"That's hardly a good reason to vote for him."

If we lose this election, many Americans will be aborted in Muslim terror attacks. Democrat diplomacy and negotiation will only encourage them.

You've ruled out McCain, Giuliani, and Romney without supplying an alternative. That leaves us with Allen, Gingrich, Pence, Tancredo, and any unknown candidates.

This may be like the Democratic primary in 2004 in reverse. They had a big field too-- Sharpton, Kucinich, Carol Mostly Fraud, Breck Girl, Comrade Kerry, Mad How, Weasley Clark, Loserman, and Gephardt. Now, Loserman and Gephardt probably would have defeated Bush, but Democrats wanted to believe the more liberal candidates could win a national election, when national elections are all about winning the center. Activists would talk about how Dean "scares" the Republicans, how people would ooh and ahh over Clark's stars, and deluded themselves into believing that Lieberman and Gephardt were Republican DINOs.

Now the shoe is on the other foot, especially if they nominate Clinton.

[Jeff Fuller]

First off, this is a loaded game . . . every politician has stances that won't please everyone. Reagan was pro-choice and pro-amnesty . . . was a much more liberal governor than Romney has been is a less liberal state. However, he became the darling of conservatives (and one of my personal heroes).

Of course you can bring up some liberal statements from someone who has campaigned in MA twice and has had to deal with a 87% Deocratic legislature . . .

I'll try to "play" this game . . . but I'm working at a decided disadvantage--letting JohnnyZ pick the topics:

Guns . . . Romney won't take your guns away. There has to be a limit on the type of weaponry that is legal to own (or should we all be able to weild bazookas and nukes?). The AWB draws the line at guns capapble of mass violence. Romney supports it as do the vast majority of americans. I've heard through a source that Romney is not a candidate that the NRA will work against . . . he's a reasonable and pragmatic person . . . someone they feel they could work with.

Gays/Boy Scouts etc . . . I would ask: Should a gay (or even sexually confused) young man be excluded from participation in the Boy Scouts? The fact that Gay-rights groups constantly bash Romney and hate him should tell you something. Granted Gays have the same civil rights that all Americans should enjoy (never seen where Romney has supported actual "gay anti-discrimination laws" like JohnnyZ says). Has never been for civil unions (initially was considering a supporting an emergency bill to stop gay marriage that did allow civil unions, but that bill broke down due to lack of support from the uber-liberal legislature . . . again JohnnyZ . . . tell the whole story man!).

Can we reverse the game? How about playing that JohnnyZ has to explain all of the copious "obviously out of character" conservative stances/policies of Romney. Turnabout is fair play, no?

Conservative credentials:

1--Turned $3 billion deficit into a $400 million surplus within one year without raising taxes and by cutting pork projects and needless "feel good" social programs

2--Most articulate and outspoken supporter of traditional marriage (i.e. anti-gay marriage) in the nation.

3--Helped push through and stand up for English only (English Immersion) education.

4--Vetoed Stem Cell Research bill in Mass.

5--Vetoed bill seeking to lower age of parental consent for abortions.

6--Vetoed bill seeking to approve the "moring after pill"

7--Strong on Homeland Security and War on Terror stances (suggested wire-tapping Mosques that have been know to promote terroist activities)

8--Managed to get Abstinence Education in ultra-liberal Mass

9--Supports drilling in ANWR

10--Strongly supports charter schools and voucher programs.

11--Pushed for approval for MA state troopers to arrest illegal immigrants for that crime alone (generally only federal agents can do that)

12--Stood up against and vetoed bill expanding free day-care to all MA residents.

13--Pushed for a bill requiring stiffer penalties for spouses that don't pay child support.

14--Just signed into law the largest "tax-relief" weekend of any state in the USA (no tax on ANY item less than $2500)

15--CONSTANTLY pushed for a decrease in the state income tax.

Need I go on . . . I really can!

And since you (sitetest) said that "Points accrue for good manners" I can assume that I get a "head start" on JohnnyZ since, just in this comment thread has called me a "moron" and accused me of being a liar and a "paid Romney staffer." I have disclosed my true name, my profession, my religion and why I support my candidate of choice--when asked. JohnnyZ has been less than forthcoming when asked about some of these issues. I'm just not buying that he's so avidly against Romney because he's a "stealth liberal" .

I want to know his background. I want to know where is this "double post" that he accused me of being a Mormon. I want to know what candidate he supports. I think he has another favorite (boss or not) and sees Romney as a threat.

A few quotes below bolster Romney's Conservative Creditials . . . he's no Tancredo or Steve King (no uber-conservative will win a general election) but he's much more conservative than most of the GOP candidates (McCain, Giuliani, Frist, Huckabee (on fiscal matters), etc . . .

In a recent National Review article it stated: “Romney has done his best to defend the culture of life on what is probably the most inhospitable terrain in the country.”

Maggie Gallager, The President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy said: “Mitt Romney is a brave man. While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own, Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician.”

Kris Mineau from the Massachusetts Family Institute stated: “On marriage and cloning, he has provided aggressive leadership as a positive, pro-family governor”

Charles Colson, a promient evangelical leader has also said: “I could in very good conscience support Romney as a fellow social conservative on most of the issues we care about.”

Kathryn Lopez, a Townhall.com columnist says:

"As more Americans meet Mitt Romney, I think they'll see beyond the handsome exterior and see not just a good salesman, but a thoughtful (and, yes, conservative) leader."

Hugh Hewitt--Conservative Radio Talk Show Host: "Romney is a true conservative, both fiscally and socially, and has the charisma and personality that reminds you of a younger Ronald Reagan. In fact, he might just be the perfect candidate."

Barbara Anderson, Citizens for Limited Taxation - Massachusetts: "We couldn’t be happier with him. Without Romney, we would have been slapped with a lot of new taxes."

Cal Thomas calls Romney "a Conservative" http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_article_id=16929&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2

OK . . . I've written enough for now.

[sitetest]

Dear JHBowden,

"If we lose this election, many Americans will be aborted in Muslim terror attacks."

Yes, perhaps we may be attacked one more time in another five years, and perhaps nearly as many people will die in that attack as die every single day in abortion mills throughout our nation.

"You've ruled out McCain, Giuliani, and Romney without supplying an alternative. That leaves us with Allen, Gingrich, Pence, Tancredo, and any unknown candidates."

Actually, I'd vote for Mr. McCain. Holding my nose, but without hesitation. And the jury is still out even on Mr. Romney (although based on what I know and see about him right now, I wouldn't vote for him). I'd vote for the others you name, although perhaps not with much enthusiasm.

Even Mr. Giuliani, should he repent in dust and ashes down the center of Broadway, beating his breast in an act of perfect contrition for his criminal views on abortion, guns, illegal immigration, special rights for homosexuals, etc., etc., etc., could possibly get my vote.

But I ain't holdin' my breath.

However, at this time, Mr. Giuliani is a liberal. He's conservative on the war (maybe), but not much else.

I'm not voting for a liberal. You need more than an "R" on your back to get my vote.


sitetest

[Jeff Fuller]

Miss Marple,

Thans for the comment. I also think that people underestimate Romney. Either that, or they're super excited to write him off with easy labels because they dislike his geography or religous affilliation. Should be an interesting couple of years!!

[JHBowden]

I understand where you are coming from.

Consider this though. If we keep the presidency it isn't a matter of if Roe v Wade is overturned, but when. That will not eliminate abortion in the United States-- overturning it sends the abortion issue back to the states where it belongs.

So abortion law in California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and so forth is not going to change anytime soon.

Now, consider an Iran that goes nuclear and pumps out many nukes a year in an effort to destroy the Great Satan and the Little Satan. While Dems pussyfoot with talk, talk, and more talk, Team Ayatollah gets 30 nukes across our porous border, puts them on light planes over Houston, Atlanta, San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Dallas, St. Louis, Denver, Kansas City, Seattle, Washington D.C., Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Pheonix, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Memphis, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Columbus---- BOOM --- the United States of America is reduced to its knees.

This stuff matters. Unknown fantasy candidate 'x' may be just as good as Gingrich, or Giuliani, or Allen on defense, but if we can't win, it won't be worth a hill of beans. I'm sure the Muslims will end the abomination of abortion with their sharia law, but at what cost?

[sitetest]

Dear Jeff Fuller,

"Reagan was pro-choice. . ."

As I stated before, Mr. Reagan publicly disavowed with anguish his actions on abortion while governor.

"And since you (sitetest) said that 'Points accrue for good manners' I can assume that I get a 'head start'..."

No, you just lost points for not accurately representing Mr. Reagan. That's rude.

"The AWB draws the line at guns capapble of mass violence."

Really? It only bans fully-automatic weapons? That's a relief to know! But wait a minute, those are already banned at the federal level.

Or does Mr. Romney's "assault weapons" ban mirror the farcical piece of trash pushed through the federal Congress some years ago by the Dems, and which was mercifully permitted to expire?

"Gays/Boy Scouts etc . . . I would ask: Should a gay (or even sexually confused) young man be excluded from participation in the Boy Scouts?"

As a Catholic traumatized by what has happened in my own Church by permitting homosexuals access to our structures, the answer is a very simple and very emphatic YES. They should be excluded.

Although that isn't really the point. The question is, do the Boy Scouts have the RIGHT to exclude homosexuals. Again, the answer is a resounding "yes."

I'll also note that he has interpreted the law in Massachusetts as requiring Catholic adoption agencies in the state to place children with homosexuals, IN SPITE of all his nice rhetoric about not giving special rights to homosexuals.

"4--Vetoed Stem Cell Research bill in Mass."

Yes - one of his "post-conversion" "pro-life" actions that came, apparently, after he'd decided he wasn't going to run for re-election as governor of (very liberal) Massachusetts, but rather for President of the United States from the (much more conservative) Republican Party.

Excuse me if I retain some skepticism.

"5--Vetoed bill seeking to lower age of parental consent for abortions."

Ditto.

"6--Vetoed bill seeking to approve the 'moring after pill'"

Ditto.

"13--Pushed for a bill requiring stiffer penalties for spouses that don't pay child support."

Having seen these laws in action, this doesn't exactly persuade me to vote FOR him.

However, all-in-all, your presentation persuades me that I'm right to think that Mr. Romney isn't as big a RINO as Mr. Giuliani.

As for JohnnyZ, I really don't care about who he is or anything else.

Neither did I ask any of those questions about you. I really don't care.

If you are being paid by Mr. Romney, but are telling the truth, it doesn't really matter much to me. If you're just a groupie for him, but you're also fibbing or shading the truth, that you're not paid by him won't matter to me either.


sitetest

[WVNan]

In every race since Eisenhower, I've used my woman's intuition about presidental candidates and I have not been wrong yet. I say that of all the potential candidates for the GOP, Romney is the only one who can win. I trust his Mormon background on social issues, even though I disagree with his theology. In the age of television, charisma is absolutely necessary, sad as it is to say. A governor is best qualified to lead the country. They are the only ones who have experience in governing the people.