Posted on 05/09/2007 4:47:37 PM PDT by wagglebee
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney says he's getting tired of the questions about his shift a few years ago from supporting to opposing abortion. In a television interview last night, he said he wouldn't be barraged with so many questions if he had switched from pro-life to pro-abortion.
The comments came during a Monday night interview on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity and Colmes."
Romney has frequently explained how he became pro-life a few years ago after having to deal with the issue of embryonic stem cell research as governor -- after campaigning as a pro-abortion candidate on previous occasions.
"What I find interesting is, had I been pro-life and then changed to pro-choice, no one would ask the question," the former Massachusetts governor said.
He added: "But if you go the other direction, as I have and as Ronald Reagan did and (former Illinois Rep.) Henry Hyde and (former president) George Herbert Walker Bush, it's like the media can't get enough of it: 'Oh, well, why did you change?' "
Romney talked about his abortion views during the Republican presidential debate last week.
Asked whether "the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed" would "be a good day for Americans" Romney replied, "Absolutely."
The former governor was also asked about his position change -- something that presumably led to the Fox News comments.
"I've always been personally pro-life, but for me there was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran for office, I said I’d protect the law as it was, which is effectively a pro-choice position," Romney explained.
"About two years ago when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far; it’s a brave new world mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us; and I change my mind," he added.
"And I said I was wrong and changed my mind and said I'm pro-life. And I'm proud of that and I won't apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life," he concluded.
My agenda is conservatism. Romney supporters only care about electing their guy, the truth be damned.
Ignore the obvious, then.
Sorry, I don’t buy your analysis of Mr. Reagan.
Apparently, Mr. Reagan was very concerned, even before he signed the 1967 legislation, about not loosening the laws too much. The original legislation as written by the legislature permitted abortion in cases of fetal abnormality.
Mr. Reagan wouldn’t sign the bill with that exception, because he felt it went too far. It was removed to get his signature.
That makes his later assertions very believable that he was horrified by the misinterpretation of the health exception within a year of the bill’s passage.
As for Mr. Romney, if he’d stop trying to put himself in a better light by lying about Mr. Reagan, it’d do wonders for his credibility.
Right now, he appears to be little more than an opportunistic lying huckster.
sitetest
"About two years ago when we were studying cloning in our state, I said, look, we have gone too far; it’s a brave new world mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us; and I change my mind. And I said I was wrong and changed my mind and said I'm pro-life. And I'm proud of that and I won't apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life." - Mitt Romney, 2007
Sure is better for prolifers than the path Guliani is taking on this issue, dontcha think?
Here's a link to the info --
No, your agenda, in this election, unfortunately, is ripping anyone to shreds who doesn't think exactly like you.
“Romney’s record as governor is actually more anti-abortion than Reagan’s was as governor. There is no denying it. “
I believe that anti-Romney types will continue to deny that. I’ve given up trying to talk sense on this point. The Cult of Saint Gipper admits of no error on their sainted hero, even as Gov.
“Maybe it’s W. who should be the pro-life gold standard.”
Good point, especially on Judges. Alito and Roberts are holding up much better than Kennedy and O’Connor.
Bonaparte: Mr. Romney, slavery was the law for much longer than that. Would you have wanted to "sustain and support" that too?
Ping!
EV, you are welcome to support another candidate, openly and wholeheartedly. But you seem desperate to drive Romney over a cliff rather than let him on the campaign road a while.
Now that Guiliani is openly pro-choice ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831033/posts
maybe you need to consider what knocking down the most credible current alternative to Guliani would mean for the prolife cause.
The consequences of your action could well mean a Hillary v Guliani race. Is that your goal?
“Romney hasn’t passed the test yet with me. But Ghouliani has already failed it.”
Dittos. IMHO, Guliani has cracked; he can’t straddle a line and now is whole hog prochoice; he has killed his shot at the nomination:
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2007/05/it-wont-be-guliani.html
Well, I would say that that would be better than what you're doing: Supporting a lifelong liberal, one who implemented more of the Left's agenda in MA between 2002-2006 than any other liberal has ever affected anywhere in America.
I can’t figure out whether that post is evidence of just being really pissed off that Mitt has support and can buy more, jealousy about not being paid like some of Mitt’s people, or pure paranoia.
I’ve got it. It is a combination of all three. LOL
Consider this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1831033/posts
I’ve fought the liberal Giuliani just as hard as I’ve fought the liberal Romney.
Your Hillary vs. Giuliani choice is a false and dishonest one - typical of a Guiliani supporter’s talking points. I’ve been amazed how willing Romney supporters are showing themselves to be to walk down the exact same path as the Giuliani supporters did on FR.
Mitt is having a hard time cracking ten percent, no matter how many millions, and how many lies, he throws at the problem. So, the joke’s on you.
From Janet Folger, President of Faith2Action, writing in World Net Daily --
I hasten to caution you about Mitt Romney.
In the debate when asked about how he feels if a Roman Catholic bishop were to deny communion to a pro-abortion Politician, he says : “The Catholic Church can do whatever the heck it wants.” Which seems to imply a separation of church and state.
But Just look at his record...
Then why did Romney:
1. Force Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to hand out the abortion drug “Plan B” or close their doors?
2. Ignore the Catholic Action League who lobbied for a conscience clause so Catholic civil service workers wouldn’t be forced to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies? Romney’s position: Perform homosexual “marriages” or you’re fired.
3. Tell Boston’s largest adoption agency, Catholic Charities, they had to place vulnerable orphan children in the homes of homosexual activists or go out of business? Rather than bow to the Romney-enforced homosexual agenda, Boston Catholic Charities closed their doors. Even Michael Dukakis said Romney was wrong to force Catholics to violate their beliefs.
4. Force Catholics (and other pro-life people) to fund abortions in his (post-conversion) health-care plan that he’s so “very proud” of?
And what about Terri Schiavo, who Romney agreed should be starved to death? She was a Catholic, too. As Ronald Reagan said, “Facts are stubborn things.” Sit down, Mr. Romney. I don’t care whom you’ve paid to say nice things about you; you’re disqualified.
“Your Hillary vs. Giuliani choice is a false and dishonest one”
Not really. *SOMEONE* will be the GOP nominee. Intrade gives top odds to the above 2 candidates.
Who do *YOU* want it to be? If not Romney and not Guliani *who*?
It cant be the tooth fairy or Saint Gipper back from the dead, it will be one of the 10 men on stage at the first debate, plus maybe Newt or Fred Thompson.
WHICH OF THOSE 12 MEN SHOULD BE OUR NOMINEE?
If you can’t even answer that basic question, or don’t have a clue about the reality of the nomination process, why should we care about the smear-hit-job cr*p you post against Mitt?
We were just discussing this tonight, how Bush did more for pro-life than Reagan, and seemingly this is also true in his appointment of the justices, though I believe he (and we) may have had the benefit of Reagan's mistakes, which President Reagan did not have.
Sincere, or not sincere, Romney as president, simply cannot flop back in a leftward direction, without losing effectiveness as a leader, and without we conservatives holding his feet to the fire, as we did most effectively after President Bush nominated Harriet Miers and on other occasions.
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.