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Asked whether "the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed" would "be a good day for Americans" Romney replied, "Absolutely."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.
What makes him think that he’d have a ghost of a chance to get the nomination if he went from pro-life to pro-abortion? He doesn’t get it.
How so?
The headline is misleading. But, when you read the text, his statement is perfectly sound. He is saying that the media wouldn't care if he changed from pro-life to pro-choice. And that it is the media which is asking him all the questions about his change from pro-choice to pro-life.
What in the world is wrong with that?
Well, thanks for the thought! :-)
Thanks for proving my point about those will not concede a blemish, however small, in the History of Saint Gipper. If Romney passed the exact same law Reagan did, he would be excoriated as an uber-Liberal.
Heck, EV blames Romney for abortion laws passed *before* Romney ever held office. Amazing.
This unwillingness to cut even an inch of slack to current candidates will lead IMHO to a President Hillary.
We have a good group of candidates, including Romney, and yet we get nothing but whining, as if Mr Perfect Conservative is just waiting somewhere to ride on a white horse. The nitpicking over Romney’s correct point is mind-boggling.
“Aren’t you the newbie who claimed MassResistance was Soros-funded a couple of days ago, and then got real quiet when you were asked to provide proof?”
The confusion is understandable.
MassResistance may be conservative/right-wing, but their tactics are quite akin to the slash-and-burn obfuscatory smearing that we get from the dKOS/Media Matters/Soros left.
Nice try.
Thanks for proving my point that you completely misrepresented that "blemish" by leaving out key details. But, then again, lying by omission is the most powerful form of lie.
If Romney passed the exact same law Reagan did, he would be excoriated as an uber-Liberal.
If Romney tried to get a MA law passed that limited abortion to rape, incest and health of the mother, it would be shot down by Roe - you know, the ruling he praised in 1994.
Your “friend” said that MassResistance was Soros-funded, and Bolshevik. Now you’re trying to help cover his tracks. Isn’t that lovely...
Classic ‘kill the messenger’ Clintonian tactics. And then, you accuse Romney’s opponents of the very thing you yourselves are guilty of.
I could care less about MassResistance. I don’t know Brian Camenker. What matters is that his little grassroots page on the internet has done more to expose the truth about Romney than anything else I know of...and for that I salute him.
“The Mitt Romney Deception” many not be perfect, but it is a fairly straighforward presentation of Romney’s own words and record, backed up with documentation and links.
If it has a main flaw, it is that it is incomplete. There is lots more out there that contributes to the case against Romney. And, every day when Mitt opens his mouth, he further makes the case that he’s a liberal who is trying to deceive conservatives.
The best thing Romney and Giuliani have going for them is they are not US Senators. Only two Senators have gone from the Senate to the White House—Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy. The other thirteen that served in the Senate but became senators first became Vice Presidents or Governors.
The List from the US Senate Web Site Is:
“To date, fifteen senators have gone onto serve in the nation’s highest elected office, the presidency. Two senators, Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy, moved directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House.”
James Monroe
Senator, 1790-1794
President, 1817-1825
Senator, 1803-1808
President, 1825-1829
Senator, 1797-1798; 1823-1825
President, 1829-1837
Senator, 1821-1828
President, 1837-1841
Senator, 1825-1828
President, 1841
Senator, 1827-1836
President, 1841-1845
Senator, 1837-1842
President, 1853-1857
Senator, 1834-1845
President, 1857-1861
Senator, 1857-1862; 1875
President, 1865-1869
Senator, 1881-1887
President, 1889-1893
Senator, 1915-1921
President, 1921-1923
Senator, 1935-1945
President, 1945-1953
Senator, 1953-1960
President, 1961-1963
Senator, 1949-1961
President, 1963-1969
Senator, 1950-1953
President, 1969-1974
But you know, I want to find out what his personal belief is on the issue, and I have. I have shared my approach, and I think it holds water.
Personally, under all of the posturing, Mitt is pro choice and pro abortion. He sees the issue in strictly strategic political terms, not as a personal moral issue. This is indicative of the cold heartedness associated with the stereotypical pro abortion supporter.
His family history is pro abortion.
That puts Mitt outside anyone I would support as a candidate.
Just like algore and jon carry, Romney can't help himself. The day's not complete without a new whopper, like the recent one about hunting.
Asked whether "the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed" would "be a good day for Americans" Romney replied, "Absolutely."I firmly believe that he would be, as president, a strong advocate for the pro-life cause. He has already sparked a lively debate and isn't afraid to talk about it openly, and we're just getting started. At present, I'm far more comfortable with Mitt on this issue than with Rudy."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.
“I’ve always been personally pro-life,..”
Sounds like Jimmy Carter.
The confusion is understandable.
MassResistance may be conservative/right-wing, but their tactics are quite akin to the slash-and-burn obfuscatory smearing that we get from the dKOS/Media Matters/Soros left.
****
You are right the ingredients are the same!
If he came out and said "I have come to the conclusion that killing an unborn baby is murder" then they'd stop asking that question.
But when he tries to pussyfoot around the issue with silly answers like "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,", then the media is going to rip into him like a flock of hungry vultures.
The fact is that Romney can't satisfactorily explain his sudden change of heart. I suspect it is because he hasn't had one.
Your conclusion is backed up by the fact that Romney still thinks it’s okay to destroy human embryos, and that he’s still taking money from those who are making merchandise of the same.
I disagree. Romney isnt saying that the electorate wouldnt care, he is saying the media wouldnt care. They wouldnt hound him about being a flip-flopper if they liked the way he flopped. I partially agree with him. After all, did the media hound Al Gore when he switched (he ran as pro-life for the senate but pro-abort for Prez/VP). No, because its okay to flip-flop to the left.
BUT where Mitt is wrong is in thinking he'd be treated like a dem. No, as a republican if he did flop from pro-life to pro-abort they'd make the point over and over and over. They smear, smear, smear all republicans, regardless of position.
I think a lot of people have a come home to Jesus moment that solidifes their views on life. For President Reagan I belive it was Baby Doe, a Downs Syndrome baby who was straved to death circa 1982 in Indiana with the concurrence of the Indiana Supreme Court.
Romney says it was his research into the stem cell issue. Though a bit too convenient for lots of folks I’m willing to take him at his word. When pro lifers convince somebody of Romney’s stature to their view we should accept the victory and continue on.
President Reagan signed terrible legislation in California and lived to regret it. He became a profound and tireless witness for the unborn, the handicapped and life. No matter who wins the nomination I would hope that Mitt learns from President Reagan, a truly wonderful American.
Just saying you’ve changed your mind isn’t enough. You need to demonstrate you’ve changed your mind.
Romney will be a tough nut to crack. However, the Mormon thing doesn’t have me fooled into believing he’s a conservative. After all, Harry Reid is also a Mormon.
I assume he’s in good standing. Anyone hear that Harry’s been kicked out of the club?
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.