Posted on 02/17/2007 8:08:37 PM PST by 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?
There's always Duncan Hunter.
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.
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.
"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.
Woh, you're on fire. Nice post.
If only you could expend this energy on the slimy and vile traitors in the congress who just turned their backs on our troops.
We have LOTS of FAKE conservatives in ILLINOIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Not to worry. I have, lol!
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.