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Asked whether "the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed" would "be a good day for Americans" Romney replied, "Absolutely."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.
If Mitt Romney is so great, why does he need thousands of words of obfuscation on all the issues conservatives care about?
"Help" me? I didn't ask for help.
You made a claim, namely, that Sandra and Jerald Tanner have engaged in "creative editing," ie. have distorted the facts about the Mormon church.
I extended an invitation to you to demonstrate the truth of your claim with supporting evidence.
Now you refuse to do so, on the grounds that I will bedevil you with endless objections.
Ok.
Then I will offer you a "new deal" --
Go ahead and demonstrate the truth of your claim about the Tanners' distortion of facts and I will say absolutely nothing in reply, not on this thread or on any other.
That's right. I am imposing a gag order on myself concerning your presentation of evidence in support of your point of view. You get the microphone, I do not.
That's a pretty fair deal by anybody's standards, right?
There is now nothing to stop you from going right ahead and making your case against the Tanners' veracity.
You may never get an opportunity like this again.
GO!
Dang, it got quiet around here...
FOFLOL. Oh, that is rich, especially since your idol is so enamored with the sound of his own voice that he can't stop talking about himself. Ironic isn't it, after the hundreds of thousands of words of obfuscation on issues that clearly no one but you and he care about he still can't get elected to any office in any state.
So, we’re the only ones who care about life and liberty issues? I see.
Y’all really are tipping your cards....
FOFLOL. Careful, if you keep patting yourself on the back like that you might hurt something.
Or -- "I smoked abortion, but I didn't inhale."
He said it, but he didn't believe it?
How reassuring.
Do we really have to walk behind Mr. Romney every time he takes up a position and see if his fingers are crossed?
You’re the one rolling on the floor. If anyone is going to injure themselves, it’s you.
Nah, they have rubber spines. It's the only way to be a Rudy or Romney booster and not end up in the ER.
Okay. NOW I’m rolling on the floor...
;-)
Exactly where and when did I declare myself to be a supporter of Romney of Guiliani?
The above were Mitt Romney's words while signing a permanent assault weapons ban. How "contexualized" do those who care about the Second Amendment need that fact to be?
I notice you tend to post the above quote when asked to provide tangible proof of your blanket charges. The quote speaks for itself, as you say, and doesn't need much context. So, you take an easy exception to redeem your other distortions - a straw-man.
I've never claimed Romney to be pro-gun or pro-assault weapons in his past. Your greatest distortions are on the subjects of health care, abortion, and gays. You're tellingly silent on the subject of foreign policy, taxes, and the economy.
Low income people were already subsidized. It's called medicade. Romney's plan adds a subsidy for people who don't qualify for medicade, but it phases out quickly. The increase in subsidies from this plan are minimal
with all kinds of strings attached,
Actually, the Romney plan decreased the number of strings attached by reducing the state requirements on coverage.
Subsidized by the goobermint, with all kinds of strings attached, so in effect it is goobermint controlled from top to bottom while in the private sector, which is the very definition of facism.
By that definition, the pre-Romney system was even more facist than Romney's plan.
That's the clever rhetorical trick available to 'extremists', who look at everything in absolute terms. Yes, relative to 1776, we are a fascist, communist, & socialist government, but we don't get back to where we were overnight.
In absolutist logic, President Bush is the biggest fiscal liberal in the history of mankind as well as a statist fascist, but the real question is, would Gore or Kerry have been better options? I'm certain they would not have.
Many here think they're more effective in going negative on 'liberals' than actually being positive about a candidate.
My primary hunting weapon is my FAL .308, a weapon that is always classed by gun opponents as an "assault weapon."
That must mean that if I go hunting, I can only be issued a "human tag."
My rebuttals are all posted here on FR if you care to reading them!:)
under the new law, individuals purchasing their own insurance must buy HMO policies. Preferred provider plans (PPOs) -- which give you more ability to choose your own doctors and treatments -- are not allowed (Section 65).
That's a lie. Section 65 DOES NOT force people into HMO's. Read it for yourself. I posted it earlier for your convenience.
All residents must have health coverage (Section 12) and all employers with more than 10 workers must assume ultimate financial responsibility if employees or their immediate family members need expensive medical care and can't pay for it (Sections 32, 44).
That's also untrue. This only happens if employers fail to offer their employees the option to purchase catestrophic coverage with payroll deductions. There is no requirement that the employer pay any of the premium, just that employees be allowed to use a payroll deductions to pay for insurance. Thus this won't cost a cent for any employer who chooses not to contribute to the preimum.
The only reason for this rule is to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to deduct their insurance premiums from their federal taxes.
I know it's kind of silly to give payroll deductions preferential tax treatment, but Mitt Romney didn't write the federal tax laws. But blaming Romney for things he had no power over seems to be EV's trademark.
Read pages 22 and 27-33 of the following legal analysis:
http://www.mintz.com/newsletter/2007/EBEC-Alert-MHCRA-Guide-02-07/MHCRA-Emp-Guide.pdf
The key phrase:
"To satisfy the Cafeteria plan regulation, the plan must, at a minimum, provide access to one or more medical care coverage options in leau of regular cash compensation."
In other words, the employer can simply deduct the premiums from the employees paycheck, costing the employer nothing.
And you claim on another thread to not be a spinning Mormon Apologist? Ooookay
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.