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?
"Romney, unlike Giuliani, is far more likely to keep his commitments to us."
I very strongly agree. Romney has spent, is spending and will spend much time persuading conservatives, his conversion is sincere. He will not be able to betray his own conversion without losing ALL credibility.
Will Guiliani and Hillary be better or even as good for pro-life as Romney?
Will Romney be making those comments about abortion as President?
If that is true, why do you thing he has any credibility now? After all, he has said clearly in the past that he will "never waver" on his staunch pro-abort position.
Who knows? It all depends on what Romney perceives to be a net political plus for Romney. Of course, as is his wont, he'll be saying the exact opposite to someone else five minutes later anyhow.
The answer to the question I posed to you is, NO.
In fact it is likely Romney as President, will publicly support the pro-life position, unlike Hillary and Guiliani, who will be publicly pro-choice, and thus Romney is far better for the unborn than they are.
Come on. Get real. Romney has played both sides of every issue that he thought he could get away with it on.
So we conclude that Jim Bopp is unpaid because he *claims* he's unpaid? Yeah, he's *volunteering* his services out of the goodness of his heart. Man, sometimes people's sheer naivete amazes me.
If prolifers support a pro abort politician for president, then Pro Life is pretty much dead. The point will be quite conceded.
Romney is NOT a "pro abort" presidential candidate.
He does not support abortion on demand, he is against late-term abortions, and he is opposed to embryonic stem cell research.
He may have had different opinions in the past, as have I.
Christ doesn't care where you've been so much as which direction you're headed.
I try to follow His example.
Yeah, he should. But I won't hold my breath.
No he isn't. He supports the destruction of human embryos, as long as they aren't cloned.
Yes, that is exactly what I conclude based on his word alone. Jim Bopp's word is his bond. Ask anyone involved in pro-life activism what Jim Bopp has accomplished in his career to defend the sanctity of life (start with Post #12). I've heard Bopp speak at pro-life events on four occasions. The man is revered by those in attendance. Cynicism is good, billybudd, but blind cynicism can lead one astray.
This is the guy that the "honorable" Jim Bopp is supporting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
I don't have a problem with one changing one's mind. Reagan did it. Bush I did it. Romney has done it twice, He has gone from pro-life to pro-abort and ostensibly back to pro-life. You get one about face. The second becomes suspect. Both of his u-turns were done in politically timely fashion. I do not trust such a man on any issue.
I don't expect any of them to do a thing for pro life.
I expect that Mrs. Clinton, if elected will get a Republican congress in 2010. I expect that either Giuliani or Romney will for their full tenures face Democrat Congresses. And they will strive to get along.
So you support Romney because he's gotten more donations? This is what our "democracy" has turned into? No wonder we see big-spending, pro-illegal politicians running the GOP.
Endorsements can be (and probably often are) bought. Having a record of supporting homosexualism didn't stop McCain from getting a warm welcome from certain evangelicals. It's all bull****, in my book. I wouldn't even bother analyzing Rudy McRomney on the issues.
I don't close the door on McCain either. Nor would I close it on Giuliani. They all have pretty bad records. But Romney bugs me on a personal level because of how slimy his flip-flopping is. Disingenuous and reprehensible. He's like the GOP's Kerry.
And this Massachusetts guy who once attacked Ted Kennedy for not being committed enough to abortion - this guy is positioning himself as the socially conservative candidate?
I'm sorry: You don't just spend your whole life condoning murder and then all of a sudden change your mind in order to appeal to mainstream Americans.
I support Hunter too. And I have nothing against Ron Paul either.
I don't understand: why Romney and not Giuliani?
"So we conclude that Jim Bopp is unpaid because he *claims* he's unpaid? Yeah, he's *volunteering* his services out of the goodness of his heart. Man, sometimes people's sheer naivete amazes me."
LMAO! Seriously.
"In fact it is likely Romney as President, will publicly support the pro-life position, unlike Hillary and Guiliani, who will be publicly pro-choice, and thus Romney is far better for the unborn than they are."
McCain, as much as I hate him, is pro-life. And has consistently been so. Huckabee is pro-life. Brownback is pro-life. Hunter is pro-life. Gingrich is pro-life (I think he'll run).
We're turning into Democrats here, supporting candidates because they "can beat [insert name of vilifed opposition candidate." Conservatives are supposed to care about the issues, not to just flock to rock star candidates.
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.