Romney buys pro-life credentials

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

[EternalVigilance]

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

[Ultra Sonic 007]

There's always Duncan Hunter.

[George W. Bush]

Mitt Romney nominated judges who were tough on crime for the 36 district court and clerk magistrate positions he filled in criminal courts.

With Giuliani, we can't find evidence that he ever appointed a single Republican judge in the dozens he selected.

How about Mitt? Did he appoint Republicans? Or a bunch of Democrats? I'd like to see a list of them with party affiliation.

[Democratshavenobrains]

Romney and Giuliani have both promised to nominate conservative judges like Roberts and Alito. Nobody wants another Justice like Ginsberg except Democrats. My point was that it was hard enough to get a Partial Birth Abortion ban when we had a Republican President and Republican Congress. And even that is being challenged constantly in the courts. Abortion should be treated like a state issue, like it was in South Dakota.

[Democratshavenobrains]

If the California recall had never happened, we'd probably be dealing with Governor Bustamante. As RINOish as Arnold is, he is still better than that guy.

[George W. Bush]

Again, it's better to have a piece of my bum on the governing chair than having a big fat bum like Hillary's occupying it.

We are all, of course, opposed to Her Heinousness' hiney in the Oval Office.

Since we're voting for your hiney, should we vote for the Left cheek or the Right cheek? And how do we tell the difference? And, given your photoshop skills, can we trust our own eyes?

[William James]

"I don't know the answer. Hunter is a great guy - solid as the day is long. He'd make an excellent president and he has my vote.

Huckabee isn't a bad sort either, but he's a little too "make nice" like Bush for me to get as excited about him as I am about Hunter. We're in CA, so we've followed Hunter's congressional work rather closely. He never fails to impress."

Huckabee's my second choice as well.

[George W. Bush]

Woh, you're on fire. Nice post.

[George W. Bush]

Yeah, the way he turned his back on the Boy Scouts when he was CEO of the Olympics

As for the MA social medicine and other issues, go ahead and oppose him. But the Boy Scouts have said this is a non-issue. It was an internet rumor all along. Boy Scouts couldn't participate as a group because of age rules for groups. No other youth groups were allowed in either. But they could all participate as individuals.

The BSA never made an issue of this or wanted it to be an issue. Only some people who claim to support them keep bringing it up.

There are a lot of things about Romney that look too liberal. But when you look closer, they're not so liberal. And some are just false. Like this BSA Olympic thing.

I'm planning to support Hunter. But I'm looking at Romney as well.

[maui_hawaii]

Don't expect anyone to see that.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Romney is the slimiest of the slimy. I positively despise the man.

If only you could expend this energy on the slimy and vile traitors in the congress who just turned their backs on our troops.

[billybudd]

First of all, those weren't the founders' priorities. They were Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. You're thinking of Locke.

Second, the founders didn't list them in order of importance. Remember Ben Franklin? - "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".

Third, you know damn well these abstractions don't come close to what we're talking about. We're talking about making tradeoffs. For example, do we choose between a politician who is pro-life but will jack up our taxes, or one who is not pro-life but will lower them? This is what I mean by priorities: *which* principles should we focus on, given a tradeoff?

Choose Ye This Day made a good point that a President is really unlikely to affect anything having to do with abortion. But, for example, he is very likely to affect tax policy or a number of other things. These asymmetries are why we have to prioritize. You don't seem to be taking these considerations seriously.

[chicagolady]

We have LOTS of FAKE conservatives in ILLINOIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AFA-Michigan]

"After all is said and done regarding Mitt and (abortion), he would look ridiculous if as president he took actions which undermined his newly proclaimed pro-life position."

You mean the way he looks now, after taking actions that undermine his previously insistent defense of Roe v. Wade and a woman's "right to choose" to pay an abortionist to terminate her prenatal child's life?

[AFA-Michigan]

Choose writes: "If (Romney) man has declared he is a pro-life candidate, you're not willing to believe he will govern that way?"

Mitt's spinners need to get their story straight. In 1994 and 2002, Romney declared he was a pro-abortion on demand candidate, but his spinners insist he governed the opposite of what he declared...and they insist he deserves credit for doing the opposite of what he said. Even Romney himself said (paraphrasing but not misrepresenting): "If you want to know where I stand, don't judge me on my words, judge me on my actions."

Now he declares to be pro-life, and suddenly we're supposed to believe that what he SAYS means any more now than it has in the past?

[Unmarked Package]

"How about Mitt? Did he appoint Republicans? Or a bunch of Democrats? I'd like to see a list of them with party affiliation."

An article in the Boston Globe on July 25, 2005 is a good reference for this information. It includes very pertinent quotes from Gov. Mitt Romney regarding his different criteria and judicial philosophy when appointing judges for the district criminal courts (tough on crime) versus appointments for the high state courts (strict constructionist). Excerpts are provided below with my emphasis added.

Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.

With increased attention on judicial nominees after President Bush's nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. to the US Supreme Court, Romney said Friday that he has not paid a moment's notice to his nominees' political leanings or sexual orientation -- or to the impact his choices might have on a future presidential run. He said he has focused on two factors: their legal experience and whether the nominees would be tough on crime. He said most of the nominees have prosecutorial experience.

"People on both sides of the aisle want to put the bad guys away," Romney said.

------------- snip -------------

The governor said that, so far, he has had few chances to appoint judges to the highest state courts, where his criteria would change to include "strict construction, judicial philosophy."

"With regards to those at the district court and clerk magistrate level, their political views aren't really going to come into play unless their views indicate they will be soft on crime, because in that case, apply elsewhere," Romney said.

[AFA-Michigan]

Choose, it does little good to argue or debate whether it's right for uncompromising conservatives to sit out the 2008 race if faced with a "lesser of two evils" choice in the general.

Fact is, many of them will. And even more of them may go into the PRIVACY of the voting booth, hold their noses, and actually vote for the lesser. BUT, they will not stuff envelopes, make phone calls, put up yardsigns, or otherwise get caught dead being associated with that lesser of two evils.

And that is what will guarantee Hillary's win.

And the only way not to demoralize and deactivate the volunteer corps, without which the GOP nominee cannot win, is by nominating a candidate whose values and record -- BOTH WORDS AND DEEDS (scratch Romney) -- they can enthusiastically support.

Not an ideological argument. A simple pragmatic, practical political argument. If the conservative volunteer corps goes fishing, Hillary will win. And no amount of lecturing by you or anyone else will get them out the door to work for the GOP nominee if that nominee has a history of supporting abortion on demand and homosexual activists' political agenda and gun control (as Romney and Giuliani does). And McCain, excepting abortion.

[redgirlinabluestate]

You do not do your cause any good with your threats. I fear that your group has turned many people off of Hunter and towards Rudy. Congratulations.

[George W. Bush]

Thanks! Not as bad as with Rudy where we still can't find a single appointed Republican.

When you look at prospective executives, you have to look at the talent they pick and promote. Those are your future.

Look at Reagan. He had Roberts and Alito and Mark Levin and, gritting teeth, Giuliani.

Shows how appointments matter in building your organization and its future.

I could live with Romney's picks and explanations on his appointments since his nominations to those courts also had to be approved by a very liberal popularly-elected all-Democrat vetting board. So he did have to consider who he could get past them. If he focused on law-and-order nominees, well, okay. Maybe.

Of course, he'd have to be utterly convincing on his change on abortion. But a convert can be your best spokesman. Just as Reagan was, who formally converted to pro-life only in 1975. Or Bush who converted on the spot at the convention to pro-life and 'pro-voodoo'. Both failed to pick reliable nominees themselves at times. Reagan lost out on Sandra Day and Kennedy but succeeded with Scalia and Rehnquist. And Bush tried but was deceived by Souter and then at least neutralized that mistake with Thomas. But those who worked at the Justice Department in those years are still with us.

[Jezebelle]

Not to worry. I have, lol!