Romney buys pro-life credentials

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

[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?

[William James]

"
Christ doesn't care where you've been so much as which direction you're headed.

I try to follow His example."

So, if a man murders a bunch of people, but then repents for it - does that mean that his having murdered is irrelevant to his candidacy for president? Forgiving is one thing; voting is another.

[George W. Bush]

Since the three leading GOP candidates are all less than perfect, you have to look at which one you can make a deal with, the one you think will do what he promised during the campaign.

I don't trust Giuliani at all. McCain and Romney, I think you could make a deal with.

It's a little like picking which of three cars salesmen to trust.

Of course, it's way too early to settle on any candidate just yet. I usually start by eliminating those I won't vote for.

[William James]

"
I don't trust Giuliani at all. McCain and Romney, I think you could make a deal with.

It's a little like picking which of three cars salesmen to trust."

That's sensible enough.

Me, I prefer Giuliani to Romney because I see him as less likely to cave if Democrats propose certain legislation or if they start whining. Bush is already veto-averse enough, but on executive matters like the war, he leads strongly. I don't trust Romney to be the same. He seems weak, like an empty suit.

[George W. Bush]

Hmmm...Romney has more experience in defending some of the conservative agenda against a very socialist legislature. Reducing spending and going balanced budget. Slipping up to half of his appointees as Republicans past an 8-member panel of Dims. Preventing the MA gay marriage thing from spreading to other states with reciprocity measures (unlike in VT and now NJ).

Now, Romney isn't perfect by any means. But we do have to ask, what can conservatives expect from a governor from MA? I think in Romney, you get more than you'd expect.

Both the mayor and Romney have records that are pretty liberal in some places. One of the reasons I would be able to support Romney is that he at least agrees with conservatives now in large measure. He's done a few things also that indicate he is not in it completely for political deception. For instance, his wife has MS and, after looking at a lot of info on stem cell research, they concluded that embryonic stem cell research was morally wrong. They changed their position and Romney did severely hobble efforts in MA on embryonic research. Now, you can call that a flip-flop. But a lot of people would see that as something pretty sincere and even indicated a degree of nobility. If you haven't seen them discuss this, it's pretty compelling stuff. Certainly, it's enough to counter a Michael J. Fox outbreak of going off his meds to go on TV and hawk for the destruction of the unborn to cure his disease. So I do think that we should look hard at candidates who have converted solidly to our positions. Romney and his wife took a position for life that many would argue might not be in Mrs. Romney's personal interest with her health. Mrs. Romney is a considerable asset, a lovely wife and mother, very articulate, very likable. I would say she is at least as good as Laura Bush as a political spouse.

Romney also is an incredibly successful venture capitalist. He salvaged a number of dying businesses with tremendous entrepreneurial flair. A solid businessman by all accounts. He was valedictorian at Brigham and he took both an MBA and a JD at Harvard at the same time and came out at the high end of both degree programs. Very very bright and highly disciplined. He appears to know how to delegate but is mentally quick enough to keep up with the devilish amount of detail in a top executive position. BTW, you have noticed that we Republicans are a pro-business party, haven't you? Romney is worth over a half billion. Look at these other top Republicans in the field. Combined, they don't have a fraction of Romney's business experience and success. They're all professional politicians, lifers. Even though MA, socialist paradise, passed a state health care plan, Romney kept out the attempts to put in employer mandates. Unlike The Arnold in CA, who is going to let those slip in.

Anyway, I'm not supporting him. I like Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter which mostly shows that I like to pick long shots in the primary.

I look at Romney and try to compare that record to Reagan as he entered the '76 race. I see a lot of parallels. Both Republican governors of socialist hellholes who have at least some record of managing to halt or divert the stampede toward socialism. I also look at how Reagan took on and defeated the northeast liberal establishment, the Rockefeller Republicans. What we need now is another able man to carry the conservative revolution forward. Romney has the ability. And he might have the drive for it, given his considerable success at taking MA from huge debt to balanced budgets. Doing that as a governor changes a pol's perspectives. This is one reason why we tend to elect governors as president. And we Republicans do best when we elect politicians with some private sector experience. We need someone who hasn't just read Friedman. We need someone who has lived Friedman as a businessman.

Another thing that I notice is how statist the slate of candidates is. McStain and Giuliani have only experience of turning to big-government measures. I think their fundamental instinct is to turn always and first to government to solve problems. I don't think Romney is in that club, again something that comes from being in business and being a governor. I think conservatives should always be looking for the candidate whose instinct is toward private sector and local government solutions.

Anyway, I see why you question why I think Giuliani is unacceptable and Romney might be. I thought I'd lay it out a bit. I probably couldn't support either one if they can't pass muster with the pro-family and pro-gun organizations. But I think Romney can. And Giuliani isn't even interested.

I also think Giuliani is a disaster on the domestic front. Married three times tells you that a person has behaved badly in his personal life or he is a poor judge of character. That little stint where he lived with the two gay guys was kind of trashy. The Kerik scandal also looks bad since the guy was his business partner. There is a trashiness to Giuliani's personal life that reminds me a lot of Xlinton. Maybe worse in terms of being unstable. I don't like to vote for people who aren't very well settled and stable in their personal lives. People might argue that Giuliani has married his Monica and will behave now but, well, I dunno. That tabloidy interview and those recent pictures of the two of them were just embarrassing. With Giuliani and Xlinton, you just expect this stuff. With Reagan and the presidents Bush and with Romney, you don't have to worry that your president is going to sleaze up the whole country with some made-for-Oprah personal bimbo eruptions.

[Choose Ye This Day]

We need someone who has lived Friedman as a businessman.

Amen to that. Do any of the other candidates even HAVE real-world, business experience? I don't want to put the economy in the hands of someone who has been in Washington, the belly of the beast, for two decades. Someone who has had to balance a budget, who has had to make their P&L...that's who we need holding a veto pen.

[billybudd]

The man is revered by those in attendance.

Now I'm starting to think you're a paid operative for this Bopp fellow. Or unimaginably gullible. Face it, the more "reverence" this guy has from his audience, the more valuable his "services" are. Guys like him are in this game for the money. They make money off suckers like you.

[William James]

You might have a point. I don't really know the intricacies of his governership in MA. I suppose I should read up on it.

I share your dislike of career politicians and lawyers. But I disagree as to whether a nearly-billionaire businessman is necessarily the best person to head a pro-business party. I don't doubt Romney's intelligence or management skills, but putting someone like him in charge might actually bring the party back to the image of the northeastern establishment Rockefeller Republicanism that, thankfully, Goldwater, Nixon, and then Reagan got rid of.

I'm a Floridian who moved to New York after high school to study finance at a prestigious school (I'm not going to name it, but you can check rankings and make a deduction if you care). I'm going to get my degree soon and enter the financial world, and there's a lot of decadence here in terms of how these business guys in the north live their lives. Cocaine, indiscriminate sexual encounters, often homosexuality, and RAMPANT marital infidelity.

I don't think Romney's one of them. He actually seems like a pious guy. But all I'm saying is that in terms of marketing, it might not be the best idea to tie the GOP too closely to this.

Of course, the GOP is pro-business. But to the voters in the "red states" this means having the freedom to own property and capital, make money off that capital, and live freely without having your money stolen from you to support the dregs of society. I don't believe the average Republican really cares about Wall Street. I don't even think the average Republican supports having American foreign direct investment help build China's military (part of why I like Hunter so much), but that's another story.

In terms of marketing and party-image, a retired Navy officer and Vietnam veteran like McCain would do much better.

I've read about Giuliani's marriage problems. I've read that he cheated on his wife, kicked out his wife and children, and then had his mistress live in his mayoral mansion. That's very sleazy stuff, and I have my reservations about supporting a guy like that. I can't blame you there. McCain's personal life isn't completely clean from what I hear either.

[George W. Bush]

Has Giuliani ever worked for anyone? The only business he's had is the speaking fees for $50 a plate, like motivational seminars. And he has that security company that mostly trades on his name as America's mayor. But these are the direct result of Rudy happening to be mayor of a city that was attacked. Without the terrorists, there would be no Rudy in the race. It's like with Clinton's Wife. Without Xlinton, there would be no Hillary now.

Throughout history, people who arrive at their positions by sheer accident of history or marriage don't have a very good record. It's a very poor basis to pick someone from.

So Giuliani is an accidental businessman, probably worth under $5 million. Less than even Bush's 15 million when he got into office.

BTW, Romney has been very warmly received by Club For Growth. He could do very well across the board with the business community and Wall Street.

I also notice that Newt was only a professor and then a politician. McStain had some business record, very minor. I think he had a Florida beer distributorship, not sure if he got that by marriage.

I'd like to know a lot more about the business pedigree of all these candidates. What, are we afraid to run pro-business capitalists in the GOP? I'm not.

[maui_hawaii]

might actually bring the party back to the image of the northeastern establishment Rockefeller Republicanism that, thankfully, Goldwater, Nixon, and then Reagan got rid of.

I don't think this should even be regarded as a concern of anyones.

There isn't a snowball's chance in... that Romney would A) represent such B) even try to revive that at all.

Should Romney get elected it will have an almost Arizona feel to it, much more than some NE new englander...

[George W. Bush]

I don't doubt Romney's intelligence or management skills, but putting someone like him in charge might actually bring the party back to the image of the northeastern establishment Rockefeller Republicanism that, thankfully, Goldwater, Nixon, and then Reagan got rid of.

It's not clear. We have time to investigate his business record and his record as governor. I'm just saying that I think he merits a good hard look. I really like his balanced budget record, his deflection of employer mandates on health care, his record of salvaging dying companies with down-to-earth management. I'm just talking about his management style and executive ability here. I don't see indications that he is a part of the decadent capitalist bunch. He may be but nothing in what I've read so far indicates it.

I don't think Romney's one of them. He actually seems like a pious guy. But all I'm saying is that in terms of marketing, it might not be the best idea to tie the GOP too closely to this.

I don't think he's actually very pious. I think he is one of those guys who likes having one wife and an intact family. A man who enjoys living but doesn't indulge his every stray desire. We all know people like this. They could cheat on their wives and get away with living in the fast lane. They choose not to. It's intrinsic to their personality and habits. It's how they choose to live. Reagan was divorced, for instance, but that might have been partially or entirely the fault of his first wife. Nancy was clearly his wife and I don't think he strayed. Because he couldn't or didn't think he could get away with it? I don't think so. The same goes for the two presidents Bush. Husbands and fathers, not looking to date again.

In terms of marketing and party-image, a retired Navy officer and Vietnam veteran like McCain would do much better.

I really think McCain is too old. We might never again elect anyone over the age of 65. It is a very demanding job. And McCain has made himself utterly hated by many base voters and some conservative organizations. These are the people you need to really work for you to win the primaries and the general.

McCain's personal life, while a little messy, isn't so appalling as Giuliani's. I don't think much of Giuliani and Newt having much younger trophy wives. And Rudy's wife is his former Monica. That just repels me. You can ignore it in private life. But not for the White House. Given how Rudy's taste in women runs to leftwingers who like to appear in things like Vagina Monologues, I think I don't care for his taste in women. With Rudy and Newt, you don't get the feeling their wives are equal partners in a deeply committed lifelong relationship. These are things that speak to the character of a man. I won't apologize for preferring wholesome families and marital stability in a candidate.

[George W. Bush]

Should Romney get elected it will have an almost Arizona feel to it, much more than some NE new englander...

Interesting take. It brings to mind some of the writing about Santorum and how he could never have been beat if he had been in a southwestern state like Arizona.

[William James]

I'm with you 100% on that last bit.

And by pious, I mean decent. I guess living in New York has made me look at marital stability as something much more virtuous and uncommon than I used to. Giuliani is definitely representative of the rotten New York lifestyle in that regard.

I'm not so sure about the age factor concerning McCain. He's old, but maybe he's wiser. He might die in office, and in that case, we'll have to cross our fingers that he'd select someone decent as VP should McCain get the nom.

[TAdams8591]

Unlike all the other races for the presidency since and including Reagan, there are no proven conservatives in this presidential race who can win. Personally, I like Jon Kyl, but he isn't running. You have to work with what you got.

President Hillary (and Guiliani for that matter) can do a lot of damage to the pro-life movement, such as successfully nominating rabid pro-abortion judges. It will set the movement back another 40 years. Therefore, I believe our chances are better with someone who is running on a conservative plank, including the pro-life issue, AND who can win.

If a proven conservative with charisma enough to defeat Hillary enters the race, I will be first in line to support them.

[TAdams8591]

"These are things that speak to the character of a man. I won't apologize for preferring wholesome families and marital stability in a candidate."

A point I alluded to earlier on this thread but you said it so much better. Well done.

[arthurus]

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.