Posted on 01/14/2007 1:45:09 PM PST by JRochelle
ORLANDO , Fla. -- Former governor Mitt Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics.
In his 1994 US Senate run, Romney backed two gun-control measures strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups: the Brady Bill, which imposed a five-day waiting period on gun sales, and a ban on certain assault weapons.
"That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA," Romney told the Boston Herald in 1994.
At another campaign stop that year, he told reporters: "I don't line up with the NRA."
And as the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 2002, Romney lauded the state's strong laws during a debate against Democrat Shannon O'Brien. "We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them," he said. "I won't chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety."
Today, as he explores a presidential bid, Romney is sending a very different message on gun issues, which are far more prominent in Republican national politics than in Massachusetts.
snip/
On Wednesday, Romney said on an Internet podcast, "The Glenn and Helen Show," that he hopes states would continue to ease regulations on gun owners, and he expressed enthusiasm for guns and hunting. "I have a gun of my own. I go hunting myself. I'm a member of the NRA and believe firmly in the right to bear arms," Romney said.
Asked by reporters at the gun show Friday whether he personally owned the gun, Romney said he did not. He said one of his sons, Josh, keeps two guns at the family vacation home in Utah,....
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
"At this point, to believe that he is sincere requres great naivete, or a desire for his election without regard to his actual positions."
I counter:
At this point, to believe that he is NOT sincere requres great SKEPTICISM, or a desire for his FAILURE without regard to his actual RECORD.
Nowandlater,
I've done the "back and forth" with Sitetest before . . . and he's tenacious (and pretty sincere and well-meaning, I think). Just fair warning.
Sitetest,
I'm glat that you're not running PR or "recruiting" for any pro-life groups. According to your rhetoric and reasoning any pro-abort sympathies disqualifies from ever joining the club (at least that's the rule you apply to Romney, but Brownback's and Reagan's shifts you're OK with). Your attitude and rules, if applied widely, would lead to a shrinking of the "pro-life" ranks. Is that what you want?
"Zero credit. Period" you say even though Romney has a 100% pro-life RECORD as Governor (heck, that's better than Reagan's RECORD as Governor!)
At least the Pro-life leaders in Mass give him more credit that you do . . . see:
http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/massleaders/massleaders.pdf
Accoring to them (including Joseph Reilly, the President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, and Mary Ann Glendon . . . prominent pro-lifer and on Harvard's Faculty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Ann_Glendon ) Romney:
"Affirmed the culture of life: Governor Romney has vetoed nills to provide access to the socalled “morning-after pill,” which is an abortifacient, as well as a bill providing for expansive, embryo-destroying stem cell research. He vetoed the latter bill in 2005 because he could not “in good conscience allow this bill to become law.”"
I think after all our previous arguments we (I?) sort of concluded that you like long historical records of consistant pro-life statements and votes. Because of the relative newness of Romney's shift you are obviously skeptical . . . but you may just be catching him too early for your "grading system" to work. He may be the best pro-life President you ever saw. No one would have guessed that of Reagan when he was finishing his term as Governor . . . . but now we have the benefit of time and history. I encourage you again to not write him off yet.
I've been in Romney's presence when he's related his "conversion" on abortion and I was utterly convinced of his sincerity. I hope you have the same opportunity.
Dbrow said:
"If Mitt is so bad to the Globe and MSM, why are they ignoring real conservatives?"
Well . . .
The "real conservatives" you mention are no names with no executive experience and no major backers and have no chance of occupying the oval office. That is why they're not worth the ink.
You're logic lack a lot too . . . RUdy's much more close to being a Democrat than Mitt (by a LOOOOONG shot) . . . and he's polling 3-5X better than Romney now too . . . but where are all the MSM hit pieces against Rudy? I'm not buying your argument.
Shameless Pandering RINO bookmark.
I'm no longer on the fence.
Duncan Hunter 2008
PING
If that's the case, they can keep their rigged primaries and coronation (thank you Karl Rove). Conservatives will leave in droves. The Constitution Party should benefit nicely.
And your point is?
He grew up in the last 2 years? Is he developmentally delayed?
You may be right. He may have never believed in any of these positions before. He just said what he needed to say to be elected. He may be doing that now.
What it reveals in Mr. Romney is a lack of moral fiber. The man has no character or conviction that he won't sacrifice on the altar of political expediency. He is unfit to be commander in chief because he will not and cannot honor his oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Only a moral person can do that.
You should really change your username to Mildly Moderate Milqetoast.
Dear Jeff Fuller,
Applying Occam's razor to Mr. Romney's "conversions," I believe that opportunism more easily defines Mr. Romney's steady stream of re-shapings from moderate liberal to social conservative.
sitetest
You have a point. The only GOP candidate who has been against tthe war from the beginning, and thus deserves more respect, is Ron Paul. Paul, unlike Romneyite opportunists doesn't constantly watch the polls so he can "mature." BTW, when is Romney scheduled to flip flop on Iraq? Is he waiting for new polls to show him which way the wind is blowing in the base?
Dear Jeff Fuller,
Mr. Romney may claim to be pro-life NOW, but he was not pro-life earlier, and certainly not for futzing around the fringes of the issue.
Someone who believes that Roe was rightly decided (Mr. Romney until 2004 or so) believes that abortion should generally be legal. That is to be pro-abortion. A pro-abort who nonetheless endorses some small restrictions on abortion is still a pro-abort.
Someone who is pro-life is someone who believes that unborn children should be protected in law, and that abortion should generally be illegal. These folks believe that Roe, then, is wrongly decided. Here, too, there is a range of views. Some folks believe abortion shouldn't be legal under any circumstances. Some believe that there should be very limited exceptions to the general law that abortion should be illegal.
By this definition, Mr. Romney was a pro-abort at least until 2002, and by his own admission, really, until 2004.
"'Zero credit. Period' you say even though Romney has a 100% pro-life RECORD as Governor (heck, that's better than Reagan's RECORD as Governor!)"
Both pro-aborts and pro-lifers can be for specific minor restrictions on the abortion license. Thus, for pro-abort Mr. Romney to favor a restriction isn't to become a pro-lifer.
Now, Mr. Romney currently claims to be pro-life, believing that Roe should go, and that states should generally outlaw abortion.
So, let's make clear: it should be undisputed that Mr. Romney was a mainstream (not radical) pro-abort at least up until 2004. He announced his "conversion" in 2005. He was touting his pro-abort credentials at least as late as 2002, to get elected Governor of Massachusetts.
Any actions on his part prior to the announcement of his "conversion" in 2005 must be considered the tinkering around the fringes of the issue of abortion by a pro-abort politician.
"I think after all our previous arguments we (I?) sort of concluded that you like long historical records of consistant pro-life statements and votes."
Well, gee, who wouldn't prefer the politician who has supported one's cause for a decade or two or three, over the fellow who has done so for maybe as much as a year or two or three?
"Because of the relative newness of Romney's shift you are obviously skeptical . . . but you may just be catching him too early for your 'grading system' to work."
With Mr. Romney, the special problem is about timing.
He ran for US Senator in 1994. In a liberal state with a pro-abort majority, he proclaimed himself an adamant pro-abort, and informed us that he'd been a pro-abort since at least before 1970. In 2002, he ran for governor, again in a liberal, pro-abort state, and reiterated his adamant pro-abort position. That's over 30 years as a staunch proponent of a woman's "right" to have her unborn baby murdered.
In 2005, deciding not to run again in a liberal, pro-abort state, but rather to explore running for the nomination to the presidency of the pro-life Republican Party, he announces to one and all that he's a pro-lifer.
Taken in isolation, that would be a strong case for calling Mr. Romney's "conversion" opportunistic.
However, the case is strengthened as we see Mr. Romney try to re-shape his political visage on the issue of the homosexual agenda and on gun rights. Again, he has "converted" from the more liberal position on the homosexual agenda (admitting that he changed his mind on ENDA while serving as governor - how so very convenient) to a slightly less liberal position, and also is trying to reposition himself vis-a-vis the Second Amendment.
It isn't just the length of time since his "conversion," or even mainly about the length of time. It's the actual circumstances of ALL his conversions, and they appear to be nothing but political opportunism.
"He may be the best pro-life President you ever saw. No one would have guessed that of Reagan when he was finishing his term as Governor . . . . but now we have the benefit of time and history."
Please stop insulting President Reagan by lying about him.
President Reagan was NEVER pro-abort. In 1967, he favored making limited exceptions to the general law that abortion should be illegal. By 1968, he'd repudiated even those limited exceptions. Mr. Reagan served as governor until 1974. Thus, Mr. Reagan had been, by today's definitions, a moderate pro-lifer before 1968, and by the time he'd finished as governor, he'd been a RADICAL pro-lifer for six years.
Mr. Romney, if his "conversion" is sincere, is barely even a moderate pro-lifer. If Mr. Reagan was a pro-abort in 1967, then Mr. Romney is still a pro-abort, now.
As I've told you before, your lame comparisons to Mr. Reagan are a turn-off.
sitetest
Dear Jeff Fuller,
I understand your point.
However, keep in mind that part of the definition is SUDDEN reversal.
Mr. Reagan's changes came over time. Although he remained a registered Democrat until 1962, he voted for Ike in 1952.
By the time 1980 rolled around, he'd been a Republican for 18 years, and been voting for Republican presidential candidates for 28 years. Even on the issue of abortion, he'd gone from "mostly pro-life" to "radically pro-life" over a dozen years preceding.
That isn't exactly a SUDDEN reversal of anything.
Mr. Romney, on the other hand, was pro homosexual agenda up until at least 2002 (by his own admission), pro-abort up until at least 2002, and anti-Second Amendment until rather recently. He readily admits that he changed his mind on the homosexual agenda (although not very much) while governor, changed his mind on abortion in 2004, and well, I don't know WHAT to think about when he changed his mind on the Second Amendment.
As a matter of tactics, by the way, I wouldn't bring up Mr. Romney in the same breath as Ronald Reagan. For those social conservatives who know the actual history of things - that Mr. Reagan was NEVER pro-abort, took decades to achieve his political changes, etc. - the comparison is insulting, or at the very least, self-defeating, and makes us even more hostile toward Mr. Romney.
sitetest
Being realistic, they are probably ignoring Duncan Hunter, et al because, at this point, they don't appear to have a chance of winning the nomination.
Any conservative who rises above the noise in the polls will have a bull's eye painted squarely on his back, though.
Understand, it's not that I'm against Duncan Hunter -- or any other conservative. Instead, I'm a conservative first (and an anti-McCain second). I'm just answering your question as honestly as I can.
Pigs would fly.
And my point was a general one, too. Perhaps, I should've written that "nothing that the Liberal media say about anybody on our side should be assumed as true. Or even close."
My first instinct, however, will still be to count it as a point in his favor...
How many of the Massachusetts activists who signed the letter defending Romney -- including some who had previously been very critical of him -- signed after receiving large contributions?
http://romneyforpresident.typepad.com/prolife_mitt_romney_watch/2007/01/update.html
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.