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?
That may be the story now, but I well remember the circumstances at the time. You've either been spun or you're spinning. I suspect the former.
Huckabee seems like a solid guy, too, in terms of his principles, policies and positions, but isn't as aggressive as he should be at this point in the WoR (war on rats) as I'd like to see.
He's also entertaining as all get out, too! :>
Short SummaryI'm not for Romney and expect to support Hunter. However, Newsmax seems to be the only source for this and reliable sources all around say it's not true.Brian Camenker’s claim in “The Mitt Romney Deception” that “Romney Barred Boy Scouts from public participation in the 2002 Olympics” is entirely false. There are several articles that directly contradict Camenker’s conclusion. NewsMax.com, Camenker’s source, did not even claim that Romney made the decision to bar the Scouts. In fact, Romney, at least at that time, sat on the Boy Scout’s executive board. The Boy Scouts said that the NewsMax article was false. Even NewsMax admitted that the Olympic Committee said that there was an age restriction of 18 years old and up to be a volunteer. There are also inconsistencies in the two NewsMax articles, only one of which is cited by Camenker. There is also some negative treatment of the accuracy of NewsMax.com, but mostly by liberal critics. Since no major media source ran anything about this story, and the local media directly contradicted it, it appears that Camenker’s claim is false.
I. Camenker’s claim that “Romney Barred Boy Scouts from public participation in the 2002 Olympics” and his source, NewsMax.com.
Camenker does not accurately describe his own source, NewsMax.com. The NewsMax article did claim that the 2002 Salt Lake Olympic Committee refused to let the Boy Scouts participate as a group. However, the NewsMax article states that the spokesperson for the Olympic Committee stated in an interview that the Boy Scouts were not allowed to participate as a group because of an age limit. The spokesperson, Caroline Shaw, went on to say:
I don’t think we’re in a position to give every organization out there official status. There’s the Girl Guides and the Girl Scouts; I don’t know, there must be at least a million youth groups out there . . . . They’re a fabulous organization, but there are a lot of great organizations out there.
She also said that Scout Leaders could apply as volunteers and the younger members “can certainly go on line and apply. That’s the one area where we are looking for younger adults and children to participate, and they can submit requests through going online to be cast members and so forth.” She even said that “I’m sure we have volunteers, a large percentage of them have been former Boy Scouts, including our president and CEO” who was Mitt Romney.
NewsMax made the bold statement that “the Boy Scouts need not apply” to be Olympic volunteers, but the article does not state why this determination was made. While Camenker blames the decision on Romney, NewsMax never states that this was Romney’s decision. It is accurate that Mitt Romney would not respond personally to either the Boy Scouts or NewsMax at the time the article was written. According to NewsMax, Kay Godfrey, professional Scout executive for the Great Salt Lake Council of Boy Scouts, stated, “For us not to be involved is discouraging, considering the Atlanta games. The Scouting council there was extremely involved.” The article did imply that one reason that the Boy Scouts were not included was because of their stance on the homosexual issue, but the Olympic committee spokeswoman denies this. The article does not state if this is the only time the Boy Scouts have not been allowed to volunteer, but it does state that they were allowed to volunteer in the games in Atlanta. NewsMax, 12/18/2000 “2002 Salt Lake Committee Bans Boy Scouts From Olympics,” by David M. Bresnahan, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/15/214301.shtml
According to a follow-up article to the earlier NewsMax article:
Earl Armstrong, Director of Field Services for the [Salt Lake City Boy Scout] council, said “our scouts won’t be participating in any official capacity” though some did help erect temporary fencing. He first said that there was a rule prohibiting “political involvement.” When asked if that rule was an Olympic edict, Armstrong replied, “No, there is a Boy Scout rule against getting involved in ‘politics.’”
He went on to state that there was an 18 and over rule to volunteer for the Olympics. The article took a cynical stance that they did not quite believe the arguments. NewsMax, 02/07/2002 “Boy Scouts Not Welcome at Olympics,” by Dan Frisa, http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/ 2002/2/7/135258.shtml.
It is important to note that the next issue of NewMax Magazine has Rudy Giuliani on the front cover with the caption “Yes, Rudy Can Win!” in which there will be an article that the website claims “This special edition of NewsMax Magazine may become the playbook for the Giuliani presidential campaign.” See “NewsMax Magazine Get It!” NewsMax.com, available from http://www.newsmax.com/a/nov06/?PROMO_CODE=291F-1. NewsMax.com according to Wikipedia is a “news organization founded by journalist Christopher Ruddy and based in West Palm Beach, Florida. It runs the NewsMax.com website and publishes NewsMax Magazine. Ruddy, who serves as editor-in-chief, describes NewsMax.com as ‘the leading independent online news site with a conservative perspective.’” Wikipedia, s.v. “NewsMax.com,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsMax.com. According to Hoovers.com:
NewsMax Media serves up the news with a conservative slant. The company publishes alternative news and opinion content through its monthly 300,000-subscriber magazine NewsMax and corresponding Web site. Columnists include Reed Irvine (founder of conservative watchdog group Accuracy In Media) and national broadcasting hosts and analysts Bill O'Reilly, Ed Koch, and Dick Morris.
Conservative websites tend to defend NewsMax while liberal cites bash it. The reliability of the site is uncertain.
II. Refutation of the NewsMax.com Article By Mitt Romney and the Boy Scouts.
According to local Salt Lake City newspapers, NewsMax’s article is dead wrong. According to Desecret News (Salt Lake City), David Bresnahan posted the story on both NewsMax.com and InvestigativeJournal.com, but Boy Scout Officials and Olympic officials “say the report is inaccurate and maintain they have good working relationship.” Mitt Romney responded to the NewsMax.com article by stating, “it happens to be 100 percent inaccurate.” Romney also said, “We’re very pleased to have Scouts help out.”
Kay Godfrey, the spokesperson who NewsMax quoted as saying he was displeased with the exclusion announced, “We’ve [The Boy Scouts] not been excluded. . . . The report is not accurate and not true.” Both Romney and the Boy Scouts acknowledged that there is an 18 year old restriction as well as a uniform policy which excludes all uniforms. “SLOC denies snubbing Scouts over gay stance,” 12/19/06 by Lynn Arave, Desecret News (Salt Lake City), p. B1.
The same story is told by the Salt Lake Tribune, where Godfrey, spokesperson for the local Boy Scouts is quoted as saying, “This is outrageous! . . . I’ve been on the phone all day because of this. It’s created quite a ruckus, but we’ve never been told we couldn’t participate.” Godfrey claims that he does not remember ever speaking with the NewsMax columnist regarding this issue. Bresnahan responded, “I’ve got him [Godfrey] on tape in telephone conversations with me. . . . The Scouts are either trying to cover their own backsides, or they are extremely forgetful people.” In response to the uniform issue, Romney said, “We have volunteers who work for us, and they all wear the Olympic volunteer uniform . . . so all volunteers will dress the same way.” “Scout’s Honor: SLOC Says It Didn’t Bar BSA From Olympics,” by Bob Mims, 12/19/2000, Salt Lake Tribune (Utah), p. A1. See also “Mitt, Rocky say Games are for all,” 10/28/06 by Diane Urbani, Desecret News (Salt Lake City), p. A14; “Helping Hands: Utah Boy Scouts Ready to Serve During Games,” by Lori Buttars, 11/17/2001, Salt Lake Tribune (Utah), p. A1.
Boy Scouts were, in fact, allowed to help out during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games and the Paralympics. Lori Buttars, Helping Hands: Utah Boy Scouts Ready to Serve During Games, Salt Lake Tribune (Utah), November 17, 2001. For example, in 2001, Boy Scouts helped to get a biathlon venue (Soldier Hollow) ready for Olympic use and, several months later, were allowed to use the facility while Olympic participants practiced nearby. Rodger L. Hardy, Scouts get a taste of the biathlon at Games site, Deseret News (Salt Lake City), February 18, 2001, Pg. B06. The New York Times, in an article regarding the 2002 Olympic games states, “Organizers have even solicited the help of 200 area Boy Scouts as volunteers doing ancillary tasks.” “Swifter, Higher, Stronger, Safer,” The New York Times, January 6, 2002 Sunday, Section 5; Column 1; Travel Desk; Pg. 13. No major newspaper or magazine actually carried a story regarding the “exclusion” of the Boy Scouts from the Olympic Games.
III. Romney’s Statements on Homosexuality and the Boy Scouts.
Aside from the 2002 Olympics, Romney has made public statements about homosexuality and Boy Scout policy. Romney was on the Boy Scouts of America’s 71 member National Executive Board from 1993 to 2002 and served in that capacity while working on the Salt Lake City Olympics. The Associated Press, Romney earned more than $500,000 in 2002, May 27, 2003.
According to the Boston Globe:
In a debate during [the 1994 campaign when he challenged US Senator Edward M. Kennedy], Romney was asked specifically whether he had done anything to change the Boy Scouts’ policy. He said then that he supported local councils’ right to make local decisions, but that he personally opposed the policy. “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation,” he said.
“On Boards, Silence On Gay Concerns,” by Stephanie Ebbert and Benjamin Gedan, The Boston Globe, October 18, 2002, Friday, p. B1. In 1994, the Boston Globe reported that when Romney was asked about the Scout’s policy he said, “I support the right of the boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. . . . I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” “Kennedy, Romney continue trading charges over facts,” by Peter G. Gosselin, The Boston Globe, October 27, 1994, Thursday, p. 39. The Boy Scouts were not pleased with these statements given Romney’s position on the Boy Scouts’ board: “‘From where I'm sitting, that doesn't appear to be a consistent statement," said Richard Walker, the Boy Scouts' national spokesman. ‘His second statement seems to be inconsistent with our policy and as a member of the executive board he is expected to support our policy.
..when I think of Mitt, two words come to mind--Ted Kennedy...
So Ronald Reagan looked ridiculous when he went from pro-choice to pro-life?
I know the scouts weren't excluded. I never said they were.
The age and uniform restrictions were agreed to by Romney as CEO. This had not been the case in the past. If you read the article carefully, you will see that the new rule being implemented for Romney's olympics is not addressed. That is why I say you're being spun. I've read this explanation before and it carefully avoids that point, which is the only important point of the entire matter. Romney allowed himself to be used by the homosexuals through NBC to slap the scouts over the Dale case by implementing rules that basically dealt them out in terms of presenting themselves as the particular organization of the BSA. When confronted with this question, he refused to comment and sent his secretary out to say "no comment."
RedGirl: "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."
Red, what threats? Haven't made any that I'm aware of.
And how could any of my comments turn people off on Hunter, since I've made no mention of him?
TAdams: "Are you saying people can't change their position on issues? So Ronald Reagan looked ridiculous when he went from pro-choice to pro-life?"
No. I'm saying Romney's sudden reversal on a multiplicity of issues, timed ever so conveniently to meet the demands of his new political marketplace, make me highly skeptical that the guy can be trusted.
No. Read the accounts of Reagan's initial stand and immediate rejection of that stand, and you'll see it's nothing comparable to Romney's alleged "evolution."
Six years before Roe v. Wade, Reagan reluctantly signed a bill allowing abortion for rape, incest, or to save the life or health of the mother. Within a year, before he ran for reelection IN HIS OWN STATE, he declared having signed the bill a mistake because of its health language. It was nearly a decade before he seriously ran for president (1976) and 13 years before he ran and won.
As I've said to Romney defenders before, if you want to invoke Ronald Reagan's experience, come back and see us in the 2016 prez election, when Romney has over a decade behind him of standing firmly for life regardless of the political calculations of a given election.
Ditto the homosexual agenda.
Of course, the only thing that's flip-flopped on gun control is his rhetoric. He used to diss the NRA, now says he joined the NRA within the last year (ABC-TV Sunday). Once again, how convenient. But he still supports the federal Assault Weapons Ban and now "won't say" if he still supports the Brady Bill, which he endorsed earlier.
Aren't we in the pro-life movement trying to convert people? And, if so, why do we lambaste someone who's been converted?
Romney's conversion is what makes him attractive to me as a pro-lifer. Here we have a candidate that not only is pro-life, but because of his change of positioning on the subject is forced to talk about it on the stump.
I think that'll give us some publicity for the pro-life cause that we wouldn't otherwise get in the MSM.
If for no other reason, that's why I'm glad Romney's in the race...
Because his so-called "conversion" is not even close to believable.
This is the King of parsers, a man who has been known to take two sides of important issues in, literally, one breath.
Once a person looks into the facts of abortion -- as Romney said he had -- it becomes exceedingly clear that it's a disgusting, evil act.
I've seen plenty such conversions and, yes, by grown adults.
I understand the skepticism. Still, if a politician says "I see light!" and then vetoes a contraception bill, as Romney did? Heck... I'll take it.
Thank you for clarifying your view.
There is no proven conservative in this race yet who has the charisma to appeal to the general population as Reagan did, and can beat Hillary. Therefore, I will support someone (Mitt Romney) who I believe has that appeal and who is at least running on a conservative platform similar to the the platform of the Republican party, unlike Guiliani.
I don't want to see either Guiliani or Hillary as president and in my opinion, Mitt can defeat Rudy for the R nomination and Hillary for the presidency.
If a proven conservative, with charisma who can beat Hillary surfaces, I will be first in line to support him/her.
"Because his so-called "conversion" is not even close to believable.
This is the King of parsers, a man who has been known to take two sides of important issues in, literally, one breath."
I'm with you. Romney scares me. He appears to be the slimiest of the three media-driven RINO candidates.
WALL ST JOURNAL, Nov. 6 2003:
"Within a year after signing the abortion bill, Mr. Reagan told political writer Lou Cannon that he'd never have done so if he'd been more experienced in office. It was 'the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation,' Mr. Cannon writes in his new book, 'Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power.'"
Did Reagan himself say this publicly? Are there any other witnesses that corroborate him saying this? Was there any mention of it prior to 2003? Did Reagan ever write or speak plainly against abortion or as a pro-lifer prior to 1975?
Please take a breath and let others think...
Instead of bombarding us with a headache it is getting very ulgy with from this Eternal Vengeance machine!
No clue. If he said it to a political reporter, presumably it was reported at the time. I'll leave that research to you.
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.