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?
Then there is his actual voting record. The Dems in Mass. gave him a failing grade. WOOHOO!
http://www.massscorecard.org/MA-Gov/Mitt_Romney.htm
Prove it. Or apologize, one or the other.
In other words, since it is impossible for you to prove it, because I am not in the employ of any campaign or candidate, I'll await your contrite mea culpa for making such an accusation.
Yeah. Those who play both sides of the fence usually do end up being despised by both sides.
It's one of the reasons RINOS always do end up being worse than useless.
Can you manage a simple one word "YES" to just admit that this is true?
Then, explain why Romney appointed several radical gay activists to the bench, too. Also, while you're at it, explain why such extreme leftists also were able to find employ throughout the Romeny Administration as well.
Your questions are red herrings. Making headway on restoring the unalienable rights of the unborn in America is hard enough when so-called conservatives like George W. Bush are in office.
Why, pray tell, would any thinking pro-life person make it even harder by nominating long time hardcore pro-aborts like Romney or Giuliani?
This is a sloppy attempt at journalism. This article says that Bopp is lying but nowhere do they ask him directly to explain about his "apparent" incosistency. And then they creatvie a motive which says that he is a traitor who is bought with money.
Look, since Mitt took office in Massachussetts, January 2003, show me where he passed or vetoed legislation that was anti-life?
The answer is zilch!
Conversely, since Mitt took office in Massachussetts, January 2003, show me where he passed or vetoed legislation that was pro-life?
-Vetoed embryonic cloning.
-Vetoed emergency pro-abortion anti-conception legislation.
and many other vetoes were pro-life in the affirmative.
If you doubt me that he governed conservatively then look at the record:
http://www.massscorecard.org/MA-Gov/Mitt_Romney.htm
He opposed the Libs for all but one of his vetos.
Romney's got better spinners than you.
2005-06 Mass Scorecard for Gubernatorial candidate Mitt RomneyPLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT WEBSITE WITH INCOMPLETE VOTING RECORDS |
|
Republican (retiring 2006) | |
Office: Office of the Governor, State House, Rm 360, Boston MA 02133 | |
Phone: (617) (617) 725-4005 | |
E-mail: Non-published | |
Website: http://mass.gov/?pageID=gov2homepage&L=1&L0=Home&sid=Agov2 | |
Vote selection and interpretation by representatives of Mass Scorecard without approval or participation from the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
|
Fundamental Issue in MassDems' Party Platform (Click for full text of platform section) |
Summary of related issue put to vote (Click for gubernatorial candidate's related statement) |
This candidate's stance on this issue | Party platform on this issue |
---|---|---|---|
Part I: CIVIL RIGHTS Clause 9: Same-sex marriage |
Sep 14, 2005:Affirming marriage for heterosexuals only | Romney: YES | Platform: NO |
Part II: HEALTH CARE Clause 14: Stem cell research |
May 31, 2005:Overriding veto on Stem Cell Research Bill | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Clause 16 & 17: Mental health | Jul 14, 2005:Maintaining two state psychiatric hospitals | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Clause 11 & 12: MassHealth | Nov 3, 2005:Increasing benefits under MassHealth | Romney: YES | Platform: YES |
Mental Health | Jul 10, 2003:Veto override of "Turning 22" mental disability program | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Part III: EDUCATION No Child Left Behind |
Jul 10, 2003:Veto override of federal school breakfast supplement | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Full Funding | Jul 20, 2004:moratorium on expansion of charter schools | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Part IV: ECONOMIC GROWTH Workforce Training |
Jan 13, 2004:investing in emerging technologies, math & science Fund. | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Part V: LABOR Clause 13: Immigrant rights |
Jan 11, 2006:Allowing in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Part VI: HOUSING Clause 1 & 3: Homelessness |
Jul 14, 2005:Veto override for $220K for homelessness | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Clause 5: Housing subsidy | Nov 3, 2005:$2 million for Mass Rental Voucher Program | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Part VII: SOCIAL SECURITY Clause 3: Safety net |
Jul 14, 2005:Studying how MA can overcome federal workfare rules | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Clause 2 and 3: Safety net | Sep 22, 2005:Restricting welfare benefits to 5 years | Romney: YES | Platform: NO |
Persons with Disabilities | Jul 10, 2003:Veto override of $200K reduction to blind job program | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Persons with Disabilities | Jul 10, 2003:Veto override of $900K for disability & mentoring aid | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Urban Investment | Jul 8, 2004:rejecting $25M earmarked for Housing Trust Fund | Romney: YES | Platform: NO |
Part VIII: ENVIRONMENT Safeguarding Natural Resources |
Nov 17, 2003:Veto override to keep park maintenance funding within MDC | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Toxics Use Reductions | Jul 30, 2004:requiring dental amalgam (mercury) separators | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Part IX: CONSUMER PROTECTION | (No votes on which to base response) | ||
Part X: SAFETY AND CRIME Clause 3: Death penalty |
Nov 15, 2005:Reinstating capital punishment | Romney: YES | Platform: NO |
Legal Services | Jul 10, 2003:Veto override of Mass Correctional Legal Services | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Crime Prevention | Feb 10, 2004:earmarking funds for women's substance abuse program | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Part XI: VOTING PROCEDURES | (No votes on which to base response) | ||
Part XII: TAXES AND SERVICES Clause 1: Condemn tax cuts |
Oct 18, 2005:Postponing reduction of income tax to 5% | Romney: NO | Platform: YES |
Number of votes in 2005-06 in accord with Democratic Party Platform: | 1 out of 22 votes. | ||
Summary letter grade: A=90% or better; B=80%; C=70%; D=60%; F=below 60% |
F |
Accord with the Democratic Party Platform is determined by representatives of Mass Scorecard and has no approval by nor association with the Massachusetts Democratic Party.
Like I said earlier, those who play both sides end up hated by both sides.
Ok...?
and how am I wrong about what I said?
If only more people could "fake" it like this:
Mitt Romney has taken the pro-life position on every abortion-related issue he faced while governor:
-He vetoed an emergency contraception bill and offered a compelling case for life in the process.
-He fought efforts to advance embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, despite overwhelming opposition.
-He pledged to veto any effort to expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill.
-He has faced constant ridicule from pro-abortion organizations for refusing to give in to their demands.
-He actively promoted abstinence education programs in Massachusetts schools. The abstinence movement and the pro-life movement work hand-in-hand to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and to promote true sexual health to Americas youth. americansformitt.com
EV,
I am sure you want to win, but I see only two outcomes. Either it is Rudy or Mitt. Which one would you prefer?
If you want Rudy to win, then hope for a late entry in the fall into the race by Newt. The early primary process is putting a huge premium on money and with Newt playing footsie with the social conservative wing of the party for the next 7 months is causing all of the 2nd tier candidates NOT to gain traction and it severely hurts their ability to raise funds and to stage an upset--in fact those two conditions will make it impossible for a dark horse to emerge.
McCain will flounder, Rudy will gain strength, Newt freezes the field by his inaction, and Romney fills the vacuum if Newt does not run. Otherwise, if Newt does wait and runs in the fall then Rudy wins. Game Set Match for Rudy.
Is that what you want?
A grim, grim LOL.
BOPP: "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."
GIGANTI: "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."
ROMNEY: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it." - Mitt Romney
Looks to me like Giganti has it nailed.
Newt is more in line with conservative solutions to our problems, all the rest are also-rans talking out of both sides of their mouths just to become the most powerful person on this planet. Who needs another Clinton ego as President...I don't!!!
Neither man will ever receive a vote from me. Ever. They've spent their entire careers fighting for the things that are destroying our country, and against conservatives and conservatism.
Your strategizing is humorous.
You know the old joke:
How do you make God laugh?
Tell him your plans...
No he didn't. How does Giganti dismiss these actions? Either Giganti is lying or Bopp is lying? Which one is the liar EV?
"Mitt Romney has taken the pro-life position on every abortion-related issue he faced while governor:
-He vetoed an emergency contraception bill and offered a compelling case for life in the process.
-He fought efforts to advance embryonic stem cell research in Massachusetts, despite overwhelming opposition.
-He pledged to veto any effort to expand access to RU-486, the abortion pill.
-He has faced constant ridicule from pro-abortion organizations for refusing to give in to their demands.
-He actively promoted abstinence education programs in Massachusetts schools. The abstinence movement and the pro-life movement work hand-in-hand to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and to promote true sexual health to Americas youth."
1) He is not running for president; he is running for VP.
2) On the slight chance he does run for president, he can not win the votes of women, independents, and Reagan democrats that Rudy and Romney can. I keep hearing his negatives are in the 60% range. Hence, he can not win in the general.
3) Newt, with all his pussy-footing around, splits the conservative vote while all the unappeasables hold out for a possible Newt run ushering in a Rudy win.
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.