Romney buys pro-life credentials

WorldNetDaily ^ | February 17, 2007 | Joseph R. Giganti

[EternalVigilance]

In the world of movies and television shows, producers rely on the viewers' "willing suspension of disbelief" to draw and maintain large followings. Shows like "24" – arguably one of the greatest shows on TV today – employ this practice by which the audience willingly suppresses its natural desire to reject fanciful premises often used in these productions in order to be entertained by the show.

In 1956, noted psychologist Leon Festinger coined the term "cognitive dissonance" to define the condition that results whenever an individual attempts to hold two incompatible, if not contradictory, thoughts at the same time even in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. Many leading pro-life groups, especially the Vitae Caring Foundation, have conducted extensive research that has consistently demonstrated the prevalence of this condition among self-described pro-choicers who recognize the humanity of the pre-born child in the womb, but nonetheless vote pro-abortion virtually without fail.

In spite of this wealth of psychological knowledge, the recent endorsement of former Gov. Mitt Romney for president by James Bopp Jr. – best known for his work as general counsel of the National Right to Life Committee, or NRLC – may require a new term altogether. Bopp's endorsement stated: "Mitt Romney has stood side-by-side with those seeking to protect the weakest and most innocent of our society … he has acted to protect the sanctity of life. [His] record on fundamental life issues is one of not just words but action. I am proud to count myself among his supporters."

The terms intellectually dishonest, disingenuous, willing suspension of disbelief and/or cognitive dissonance just don't seem to adequately describe the magnitude of Bopp's betrayal – even combined.

By virtually any political observer's account, it is a stretch to consider Mitt Romney pro-life. After all, this is the same man who once boasted in 1994, "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since … 1970. … You will not see me wavering on that."

Of course, Romney now maintains that he has enjoyed a road-to-Damascus experience and is now pro-life – conveniently, just in time for 2008 … but more on that later. This endorsement would hardly raise an eyebrow if it were just the typical posturing of a political campaign. That's not to say this wasn't a decidedly political move, which it most certainly was. But the truly troubling part of this endorsement is who gave it and what he represents to the pro-life movement at large.

One look at Bopp's long and distinguished career – as general counsel of Focus on the Family and NRLC, and a client list that includes Catholic Answers, Christian Broadcasting Network, the Gerard Health Foundation, Priests for Life and the Traditional Values Coalition, among others – begs the question of how someone so involved in the pro-life, pro-family movement could so readily ignore far more qualified, more stable candidates to jump on the bandwagon of an unknown quantity at best.

The annual March for Life was held in Washington, D.C., a few weeks ago. Neither Romney nor any representative was anywhere to be found – newfound conversion notwithstanding. Conversely, stalwart defenders of the dignity of the pre-born, like fellow presidential hopefuls Sen. Sam Brownback and Rep. Duncan Hunter, were there as they have been for several years running.

To the Romney camp's credit, they seem to clearly recognize that they lack credibility with the conservative base. Unfortunately, they've opted to close that gap by spreading around barrels of cash to purchase those bona fides by hiring people who do possess said standing, apparently giving them such lofty titles as "Special Adviser on Life Issues." The possibility that Bopp may be receiving payment for his advisory services would readily explain his gushing endorsement, which both defies fact and logic, but it does not excuse it.

Far be it from me to question Romney's Saul-to-Paul experience regarding the pro-life cause; if true, it would be wonderful news. But a president of the United States this change does not make.

To take the biblical analogy further, Paul did not readily or easily ascend to a leadership role in the early church. First, Paul was sent to Ananias to be healed and taught the faith. Then he labored for years to prove the validity and sincerity of his conversion. To that end, if Romney truly wants to help the pro-life movement, he should spend the next several years dedicating his time, talent and treasure to enacting real change at the state and/or federal level in whatever capacity he can that doesn't include running for the highest office in the country.

Frankly, hasn't the presidency of George W. Bush – replete with federally funded embryo-destructive stem cell research, Harriet Miers nomination and over-the-counter status for the abortifacient Plan B – demonstrated that if the pro-life movement wants to end abortion, it needs to be just as demanding and discerning as their pro-abortion counterparts?

Kate Michelman, Cecile Richards and company will never compromise on their 100 percent pro-abortion stance when considering candidates. For example in the recent Virginia gubernatorial race, NARAL refused to endorse Tim Kaine, an openly pro-abortion candidate, because he believed that parents should know if their underage daughters were seeking the invasive surgical abortion procedure. The pro-abortion movement is so ardent that they fight tooth and nail in every state that tries to approve "Choose Life" license plates for fear that such a simple message on the back of cars might lead to mass pro-life conversions.

Conversely, one of the most respected heavyweight legal champions of the pro-life movement – who has made a career and a living off the $10 donations made to nonprofits by retirees who want nothing more than the rights of the pre-born to be protected – trips over himself to endorse and defend a candidate who has consistently governed in favor of the pro-death, pro-homosexual movement, who still favors embryo-destructive stem cell research and who does not support passage of the Human Life Amendment.

As for Bopp's support of Romney and his status as a paid campaign consultant: Shouldn't such a detail be made public to those who would otherwise trust such an endorsement as a heartfelt expression of someone concerned with the best interest of the pro-life movement, rather than a politically expedient offering awarded to the highest bidder?

Such information might better inform the public how much weight they should give Bopp's support of Romney. And it also might illuminate what such a betrayal costs: 10, 20 or perhaps 30 pieces of silver?

[EternalVigilance]

Personally, whether they sell their souls or give it away for free means little to me. The results are identical.

[Spiff]

Where is this knight on the white stallion? Where?

You spent half of 2003 attacking Tom McClintock in his primary election run in California. You were supporting liberal Arnold Schwartzenegger then. You kept posting your artwork attacking the conservative Republican and promoting the liberal one. I kept posting Arnold's quotes demonstrating his liberal views (an example). Times have not changed. I was called a spammer for posting the truth then and you were promoting the most liberal Republican in the race and attacking the conservative. Look what you ended up electing in California. Not satisfied with electing a stinking liberal to be governor of CA, you want to repeat that at a national level with Giuliani.

I just looked through some of those old threads and I see the same people saying the same exact things that are being said now as some FReepers promote the liberal and others fight the liberal. You haven't changed. You're still promoting the most liberal candidate in the race and you're still attacking conservatives.

Here are a few examples of your attacks on the conservative candidate in the Republican primary:

And here's one of your pro-liberal candidate graphics:

You've created and posted two of your images promoting the most liberal candidate in the current race.

Here's one:

It's only a matter of time that you'll start creating and posting images attacking the conservative candidates.

You've demonstrated a consistant pattern of promoting liberals and attacking conservatives in primary elections. Do you even consider yourself a conservative anymore? Did you ever?

[Choose Ye This Day]

If the man has declared he is a pro-life candidate, you're not willing to believe he will govern that way?

So, if by some wild stretch of the imagination, Romney actually wins the nomination...would I still be "selling my soul" if I vote for him?

[EternalVigilance]

If the man has declared he is a pro-life candidate, you're not willing to believe he will govern that way?

He has a thirty seven year record of supporting and, to use his word, "sustaining", abortion on demand, by his own admission. Yes, he said that he supported abortion even before Roe v Wade. I think anyone who believes that he has changed at this point in time is either a complete fool or a liar themselves.

So, if by some wild stretch of the imagination, Romney actually wins the nomination...would I still be "selling my soul" if I vote for him?

Yes. Or giving it away, as the case may be. Some folks don't even require the thirty pieces of silver.

[Spiff]

Ping to Post #122

[EternalVigilance]

I saw it. Awesome post. Gives the real context of this "discussion."

Only thing I saw in it that I would change is that I'm pretty sure he's working for Romney, not Giuliani. Not that there's really that much difference when it comes down to it.

[Choose Ye This Day]

How interesting.

And whom do you think will be the president in 2008, if all you non-forgiving types take your ball and play elsewhere?

Again, IF Romney is the Republican nominee, and he's up against Hillary or Obama, and you go vote Constitution Party or write in Hunter, who will likely win?

[nowandlater]

That's funny, I thought Romney was is the business world the majority of his life? Amazing, Romney can be in politics and be an investment bankers for 33 years at the same time!!! lol

[EternalVigilance]

Pro-life Republicans have had an unchanged position since Reagan. Don't mess with the Reagan pro-life platform, and don't nominate a pro-abort for President or Vice-President.

I won't be the only one "taking my ball elsewhere" if the sellouts and the liberals in the party get their way and nominate a liberal like Giuliani or Romney.

It's a matter of conscience. Would you have folks voilate their conscience so you can elect a DemLite liberal?

[EternalVigilance]

That's funny, I thought Romney was is the business world the majority of his life? Amazing, Romney can be in politics and be an investment bankers for 33 years at the same time!!! lol

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." - Mitt Romney

[FreePoster]

There may be a time when one has to choose the least-bad candidate. Until then, what's wrong with a conservative supporting a conservative? Having to choose the least-bad candidate is a dilemma I would work at this point to avoid, not to promote.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Nice dodge.

Again, IF Romney is the Republican nominee, and he's up against Hillary or Obama, and you go vote Constitution Party or write in Hunter, who will likely win?

[EternalVigilance]

Sorry. Your attempt to bludgeon me into voting for a liberal won't work. A liberal is a liberal is a liberal.

[Choose Ye This Day]

I'm not attempting to "bludgeon" you into anything.

I just want to see if you have a grasp on reality.

You do what you want. You vote your conscience. You vote CP or some other party rather than vote for Romney, who SAYS he's going to govern pro-life. And a whoooole bunch of you do the same thing. You vote your conscience.

What will be the result? Who will be sworn in as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief in January 2009?

[Spiff]

Only thing I saw in it that I would change is that I'm pretty sure he's working for Romney, not Giuliani. Not that there's really that much difference when it comes down to it.

Romney...Giuliani...McCain...Rudy McRomney...what's the freakin' difference!?

[FreePoster]

Personally, I will be voting with my conscience in any case. I've never expected a national election to hinge on my single vote. And if the GOP insists on pushing a candidate whom too many conservatives do not accept, I won't feel the guilt for it.

[Choose Ye This Day]

There is NOTHING wrong with a conservative supporting a conservative.

This early in the primary season, I'm all for open, HONEST discussion of each candidate's strengths.

I'd love to see more from Hunter, where he SHOWS he has the stuff to win the election, to win the hearts and minds of Americans.

I am NOT thus far persuaded by Hunter's FR supporters, who can only hurl ad hominems and epithets, cutting down other candidates (and their supporters). I am NOT persuaded by people who feel so strongly about one issue or another that they are committed to seeing Hillary woted into office is the Republican nominee isn't the one they want.

[EternalVigilance]

Who cares? Hillary tried to get socialized medicine and failed. Mitt succeeded.

Hillary would love to see society so degraded that it accepted gay marriage. She probably doesn't have what it takes to accomplish it. But, Mitt used his executive power to implement gay marriage in MA.

As I said, a liberal is a liberal is a liberal. And the wolves in sheep's clothing in our midst present the greatest threat of all.

Only a Judas could betray Christ.

Only a Brutus could betreay Caesar.

Only an Arnold could betray Washington.

[Choose Ye This Day]

seeing Hillary voted into office if the Republican nominee isn't the one they want.

[Choose Ye This Day]

So, you would feel the country, the economy, the troops, and the unborn would be every bit as safe with Hillary as President as Romney? Just the same? No difference?