Romney buys pro-life credentials

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

[AFA-Michigan]

The other distinction, even if Reagan was silent about his views.

Silence, compared to Mitt, would be golden.

Mitt spent over a decade insistently, firmly arguing in favor of abortion on demand. And the homosexual agenda. And gun control.

Gave aid and comfort to the enemy on multiple issues.

[George W. Bush]

Mitt spent over a decade insistently, firmly arguing in favor of abortion on demand. And the homosexual agenda. And gun control.

Here's how I'm looking at it. Rudy I will never support even in the general. And we can always fall back on McStain if we have to. But other than that, only Romney seems to have the organization and money and preparation to run a national campaign.

I also saw that at least some of the ammo fired at Romney isn't true or is shaded to make him look worse. So I'm looking at the evidence his opponents can muster (and who they're working for since the source of the BSA story is in the tank for Giuliani). And I'm looking at a lot of solid Republicans and evangelicals who say there's more to these stories about Romney. Most of all, I'm looking to see what the biggest pro-family, pro-life, and pro-gun organizations have to say after they investigate his record and talk to him in length. Their opinions will sway me a great deal on .

In the meantime, I lean toward Paul (less so after that useless symbolic vote last week). More likely, Duncan Hunter. (I'm a waverer on those two.) But I won't slam the door on McStain, loathsome as he is. Or on Romney until I hear more about him from unbiased sources.

[Unmarked Package]

”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.”

”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?”

__________________________________________

Joseph R. Giganti included the above words in this vicious article that he authored on Feb. 17, 2007 implying that the good name and impressive pro-life credentials of James Bopp, Jr. were up for sale to the highest bidder.

National Review Online recently published an article written by James Bopp, Jr., titled “The Best Choice Is Also a Good Choice - Why social conservatives should support Mitt Romney for president”. At the bottom of the article appears the following footnote (my emphasis added):

— James Bopp Jr. is a lawyer who focuses on nonprofit corporate and tax law, on campaign finance and election law, and on life issues. He most recently joined the Romney Presidential campaign as a special adviser on life issues, an unpaid position.

I note that the online version of Giganti's hit piece now has this statement:

Editor's note: Following the publication of this column, James Bopp Jr. said he is a volunteer and not a paid campaign consultant for the Romney campaign.

Joseph R. made a Giganti mistake in slandering Jim Bopp with the scurrilous, unfounded accusations in this article published at WorldNetDaily. Giganti should apologize to Jim Bopp and to all his WND readers for smearing a great man whose good name is synonymous with the pro-life movement in the U.S.A.

Email to Joseph R. Giganti should be addressed to: joe@veritasmediagroup.com

[EternalVigilance]

Okay. Let's ask you: Are you a paid campaign operative for Mitt Romney's campaign?

[EternalVigilance]

Whether he's being paid or not doesn't change the fact that he's sold out the pro-life movement by supporting the guy on the VIDEO below:

Mitt Romney - 2002 - vociferous support for abortion

[EternalVigilance]

a special adviser on life issues

Yeah, gotta show Romney how to fool those rubes, dontchaknow...

[Registered]

Are you a paid campaign operative for Mitt Romney's campaign?

It must suck to be you, only working for fringe candidates that don't have a snowball's chance of winning. Of course when fleecing is the only reason for them to run in the first place it doesn't make a smidge of difference does it?

[Unmarked Package]

"Okay. Let's ask you: Are you a paid campaign operative for Mitt Romney's campaign?"

No, I'm not a paid campaign operative for Mitt Romney's campaign. My efforts on behalf of Mitt, and other Republican candidates, are strictly voluntary. :-)

[EternalVigilance]

What do you think of that video, Registered? You're a media guy. Rate his debate performance.

[EternalVigilance]

Your post is as despicable as this fraud Romney you're shilling for. You're really a match.

[arthurus]

I would not trust anyone's judgment who thinks Romney will be good for the Pro-Life side.

[Registered]

Hit abuse Gomer.

[arthurus]

The conservatives have all gone to ground. I like Hunter a lot but he has no experience running anything and that counts for a lot. If he goes in without having a feel for how to get things done he will be captured and/or ignored by his bureaucracy.

[EternalVigilance]

In the video, Mitt Romney vociferously defends his pro-abort record, and even calls his mother's support for abortion going clear back to 1970 "courageous." Do you agree that such a stance was "courageous?"

[arthurus]

That one is too easy. Appoint pro-life strict constructionist judges.The first term is a subset of the second, of course.

[EternalVigilance]

In the video, Romney treats a pro-life endorsement like it was the bubonic plague. Do you approve?

[EternalVigilance]

Hit abuse Gomer.

What, on your slanderous post 207? Nah. Let it stand so everyone can see what a lying scumbag you've become. Don't like being called that? Hit abuse, Gomer.

[arthurus]

It still makes no sense. Evidence to the contrary both incompatible positions? That is what it says. It should perhaps say "evidence that one position is untenable."

[Registered]

I'll ask Mitt why he said those things next time I see him. ;-)

[EternalVigilance]

I'm sure you will.