"Now, if that story gains legs, Romney could be in big-time trouble. If his conservative, religious, Republican base begins to view him as a shyster, it's not as if he could do yet another 180-degree turn and try to re-engage progressive, pro-abortion-rights voters."
The plot grows thicker by the minute. Concerning CBS and Romney, is the enemy of my enemy my freind, is the friend of my enemy my enemy?
-> “pro-life”, but provided tax-payer funded abortion in MA
-> Against stem cell research, but owns stock in companies that do this work
-> Against porn, but never spoke up about the millions Marriott makes off in-room porn while serving on the board
-> Now, Effective Leader of Olympics, but most of success was in place before he got there...
~Mitt 2008!~
I wouldn't bet my last buck that he wouldn't try...
Another silly story. Everyone and her uncle knows Mitt Romney deserves credit for saving the Olympics.
So some lib pro-Democratic reporter jumps on Mitt and all the good Republicans join in on the bashing.
Just what the Dems want you to do.
Amazing.
Since graduation from Columbia, Erbe began covering national politics in Washington D.C. In 1992 she was made host on the television series To the Contrary with Bonnie Erbé. Besides appearing on her own show, she has also appeared as a pundit for many of the cable news networks and National Public Radio. She has a weekly column on politics, women's issuses, religion, the environment and demographic trends that she writes for the Scripps Howard Newspaper and is syndicated through their newswire. She also writes an opinion blog for USNews.com.
In 2000 there was some controversy over Erbe's comments that Linda Chavez, one of her panelists, was in greater danger of being struck by lightning than of being raped, due to her [Chavez's] age. Chavez quit the show's panel as a result of Erbe's comment.[1]
Here is a smattering of some of her "quality" work, just from googling her articles: The blogosphere is not wide-ranging, open to all manner of opinions and diverse in its viewpoints. In fact, according to some media reports, it is singularly white, male, somewhat sexist and possibly even racist.
http://news.bostonherald.com/editorial/view.bg?articleid=1016526&srvc=home
Watch global weather reports, and, to paraphrase Bob Dylan, you don't need a weatherman to know which way global warming is blowing. It's blowing your way--and fast.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/26/usnews/whispers/main3102645.shtml
Society should encourage this attitude. If it means they have fewer children, so be it. The U.S. population is rising regardless and at historic levels, because of immigration. We as a nation are hardly in need of increased population. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/327928_erbe17.html
My opinion only:
Romney will not get the nomination. Not electable.
Note the weasel parsing of very slightly different words:
Chris Wallace plays a series of Romney soundbites, one of which was:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) M. ROMNEY: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose and am devoted and dedicated to honoring my word in that regard. I will not change any provisions of Massachusetts's pro-choice laws. (END VIDEO CLIP) WALLACE: For eight years — eight years — you said that you would protect and respect a woman's right to choose. M. ROMNEY: Yes. Yeah, that's right...
So Wallace says for 8 years he would protect a "right to choose." Romney says Yup ("Yeah, that's right...")
Then in the same exact interview, Romney has the gall to say: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't feel I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so...
[We all know how important it is for Mormons to "feel"--burnings in the bosom & all...and that supposedly determines everything].
So, Romney goes on record in the 90s saying "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." Years later, Aug. 12, 2007 to be exact,he agrees with a journalist, that for 8 years he would protect a "right to choose, "Yeah, that's right..." But then in the same exact interview, he says, "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice..."
So, allow me to paraphrase a bit: "I protect a right to choose; yup, I protected I right to choose for 8 years, but even though I protected a right to choose for 8 years, I just didn't think of myself as 'pro-choice' [and we all know that makes all the difference in the world] or would I allow myself to use that nasty word, 'cause, of course, who wants to think of himself as a nasty person?"
And this is a candidate that honest, pro-life religious folks want to see win and let their reputation go down in flames with his? How is this any different than Clinton's parsing of words?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) M. ROMNEY: I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it.
For throughout their entire history, LDS use that word "sustain" to talk about supporting, elevating and undergirding their "living prophet." It's a very important LDS word, because they hold their "living prophet" in such high esteem.
So when an LDS leader like Mitt Romney goes on record to describe Roe vs. Wade in the same exact way he would describe supporting his "living prophet," that shows you how committed he was to this child-slaughtering, black-robed decision.
Oh yeah, and everyone knows, abortion is the most important issue in determining the next POTUS. (rolls eyes) Give it a rest already. The guy has already said he’s pro-life, yada, yada, yada. But yet, you concentrate on nonsense, yada, yada, yada.
You’re a troll, troll, troll. More than that, you’re a stupid troll.
I need to see the transcript....
“When he began, he followed the principles he’s always followed. He told people the truth, he said, about how bad things were and how he was going to make things better. He brought in people he knew and trusted, including Fraser Bullock, a colleague from Bain Capital who serves as chief operating officer of the SLOC. He implemented stringent ethical standards, opening meetings and making documents available to the public, and requiring employees and board members to report potential conflicts of interest and complete an annual survey of ethical conduct. He evaluated the finances and cut the budget by $200 million. He hired a sales staff and courted potential sponsors, touting the Olympic brand and “the great qualities of the human character that tend to be displayed in these moments on the world stage.”
He did all this not only to regain trust and achieve fiscal stability but to place the emphasis back on the athletes. It is perhaps the only goal he couldn’t accomplish.”
http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/2002/spring/feature_1-2.html
Yeah sounds like a liberal to me. /sarcasm
Anyone with half a brain KNOWS that to be governor of Mass. HAS TO APPEAL TO LIBERALS in a MAJOR WAY. Mitt will tell people what they want to hear - and MASS. is a VERY LIBERAL state so he HAD to appeal to the STATE of LIBERALS to win as governor. He’s also soft on homosexuality.
Mitt’s supporters are fooling themselves. Mitt is a lying scoundrel.
He’s a lying credit grabber.
The sycophantic following and defense by Mormon posters of Romney is very telling on this thread. Any arguments against the candidate are met with “how dare you say that?” comments and not rational, “why what you said isn’t so and here’s the proof” comments.
It has echoes to me of certain aspects of people I used to know who were followers of certain TV evangelists. Their “preachers” become God-like. I’m an evangelical Christian who likes and welcomes debate. It took me a long time to get to this point, having grown up in a different culture. But I know God is logical, and although there are aspects to faith that require putting “wisdom of the world” aside, it’s ok to learn apologetics.
I also view my political candidates as “rendering unto Caesar” and I don’t have a faith litmus test, but I do have a western civilization litmus test. I think Mike Huckabee the Baptist probably shares my beliefs, but in my opinion he needs to uphold the laws in immigration and is woefully deficient in that area. That the law is upheld is so important to me that I would gleefully vote for a non-Christian if they would but uphold the laws of the land.
It’s kind of gross to see Mormons getting all bent out of shape when someone dares criticize their candidate.