Posted on 09/21/2007 1:05:48 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
It’s only Wednesday, but already it’s been a busy week for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who is, of course, currently running for the Republican nomination for president. Since Monday, he held a press conference denouncing Hillary Clinton’s much-discussed national health-care plan, wrote a letter urging U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to bar Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from addressing the U.N., and unveiled a 68-page policy document titled, “Strategy for a Stronger America.” On Tuesday, Romney spoke with National Review Online about his week so far.
--snip--
Romney sounded more certain when the discussion moved to Iran. I asked him about his letter to Ban Ki-moon, requesting that the newly-elected secretary-general revoke Ahmadinejad’s invitation to address the U.N. General Assembly next week. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to ask the U.S. State Department simply to deny Ahmadinejad a visa?
“The invitation was extended by the secretary-general, and that’s the first place where, in my view, the invitation should be withdrawn,” Romney says. He repeated another point he made in his letter to Ban Ki-moon, which is that Ahmadinejad should be indicted for inciting genocide against the people of Israel.
--snip--
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
>>>>My opinion was on the merits of Reagan's decision to sign the legislation -- nothing to do with Romney there. And, no, I did not say that I agreed with Romney with regard to Reagan being adamantly pro-choice.I neither said nor inferred it.The inference you gave with your remarks is crystal clear. You make excuses for Mitt Boy and don't care who you step on in the process. Pathetic.
>>>>>As I told EV once, we obviously interpret facts differently, which is okay. :)Good guess. As I recall he questioned my sanity. :)My guess is, EV didn't agree with you either.
As the saying goes. You're entitled to your own opinion. Just not your own facts.Indeed, as long as the facts are accurate and complete (not selective).
I beg to differ.
>>>>>So, you're saying that Ronald Reagan as Governor of California signing into law pro-abortion legislation years before Roe v. Wade is not adamantly pro-choice. Okay, got it.
>>>>>As I recall he questioned my sanity.
Again, I would agree with him.
>>>>>>I neither said nor inferred it.There I was telling Petronski that I understood his point. I neither agreed with it, nor disagreed with it.I beg to differ.
>>>>>So, you're saying that Ronald Reagan as Governor of California signing into law pro-abortion legislation years before Roe v. Wade is not adamantly pro-choice. Okay, got it.
You didn't have to. Couch it anyway you like. Your inference is crystal clear.
Okay, got it. = I don't agree.
And your narrative since that reply is also crystal clear.
>>>>>There I was telling Petronski that I understood his point. I neither agreed with it, nor disagreed with it.Okay, got it. ;)You didn't have to. Couch it anyway you like. Your inference is crystal clear.
Okay, got it. = I don't agree.
And your narrative since that reply is also crystal clear.
No, my point was not about what Romney said about Reagan at all. It was that if Romney had signed like legislation in 1968 that there would be a double standard with regard to what would be said of Romney vs. Reagan today.
The damage is done. Trying to back off now just makes you look foolish.
The damage is done. Trying to back off now just makes you look foolish.I'm not worried about who looks foolish in our past few exchanges.
Obviously, you like the attention. Carry on.
I have never seen Mitt looking tired and I have seen him in person (Irvine CA) but it must be absolutely grueling out there on the stump and he never lets up. I think Mrs. Romney has to pace herself.
“>>>>>I’d say that if Reagan had doubts about abuses then he should have not signed the legislation.”
“Easy for you to say.”
Of course it is easy for us to say. Hindsight is 20/20. Yet we give Reagan a pass for this, and for Sandy Day o’connor, and for not really moving the ball on abortion much, because he was a pro-life leader. GHW Bush was pro-choice in the 1960s and prolife in the 1980s, and his main contribution to the cause was to nominate Clarence Thomas to the USSC. We dont berate GHWBush for being not-pro-life enough, even though he gave us David Souter.
Romney was in office for only 4 years, he doesn’t have a 30 year record on anything. His 4 years as governor show this record to be one of vetoing several bills based on pro-life concerns, supporting abstinence-based education, etc. His real record as governor was not bad.
McCain for overturning Roe v Wade? not in 2000:
“But we all know, and it’s obvious, that if we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations. I want us to be a party of inclusion. I think that we can all be members of the Republican party whether we are pro-choice or pro-life because we share the same goal, and that is the elimination of abortion because it’s an unpleasant and terrible procedure. We think–I think, that we must go back to the party platform of 1980 and ‘84, we include people who have this specific disagreements, who share our same goals.” (Unfortunately, this video is not dated, but given the banner across the screen, it’s from some point during McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.)”
Rudy Guliani is sticking with a pro-abortion position:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07051408.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-157837611.html
Kate O’Beirne:
“ FOR decades, pro-life activists have been in the business of winning hearts and minds to their cause. Powerful arguments about the humanity of the unborn have moved public opinion, and a pro-life political force has made ambitious politicians feel the heat, whether or not they see the light. Pro-lifers’ faith in the power of persuasion has been rewarded, and their political clout increased, by important converts, including Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Mitt Romney has also changed his position on abortion, but some social conservatives argue that membership in their ranks should be closed to this most recent convert with presidential ambitions.
In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a liberal abortion law, declaring, “I’m fully sympathetic with attempts to liberalize the outdated abortion law now on the books in California.” Reagan later changed his mind and expressed regret for signing a measure that saw more abortions performed in California than in any other state before Roe v. Wade. He became a committed pro-life politician and backed the first pro-life plank in the Republican platform. George W. Bush ran as a pro-choice politician in his 1978 congressional campaign, but held pro-life views when he ran for the governorship of Texas in 1994. His father too once favored abortion rights, but took a pro-life position in the 1980 presidential campaign.
When Sam Brownback was running in a GOP congressional primary in 1994, he initially rebuffed a pro-life group’s endorsement, according to a recent account in The New Republic. In that article, a former president of Kansans for Life recalls that Brownback was “unfamiliar with the anti-abortion lexicon” 20 years after Roe v. Wade, and that Brownback described himself as “more in line with the view of Nancy Kassebaum,” the state’s pro-choice junior GOP senator. But Brownback wound up facing a primary challenger who, as the article puts it, “was about as pro-life as you could get without earning yourself a restraining order.” Prior to the race, Brownback had never had to defend his abortion views; but by Primary Day he was on the record as an abortion opponent. The article plausibly asserts that Brownback, who has formed a presidential exploratory committee, “is closing in on a decade as the leading social conservative in the U.S. Senate” (though Rick Santorum also has a claim to that title). “
Conclusion: Every single politician has evolving positions on this. Mitt Romney is not unique at all.
“I understood your point, but you did not understand mine.
If Mitt Romney had done the same as Reagan in 1968 and had written passionately about how conflicted he was at the time, I believe, based on observation, that you would call him a liar.”
I have gone over many issues ad nauseum with Mitt-bashers to agree with that view. Any difference or change in view is a “lie”. If Mitt expresses a viewpoint at variance with their interpretation of events, then Mitt “lied”.If Mitt said it was “partly cloudy” and they think it really was partly sunny, then “Mitt Lied”.
Romney made self-serving comments comparing his evolution of views to Reagan’s but at no time was dissing or disrespecting Reagan in the comparisons. So those who accuse Mitt of disrespect are IMHO not being truthful. Should I call them ‘liars’? It seems a stretch.
“In my view, you’re doing the same as you accuse Mitt Romney of doing. That’s why it is difficult — extremely so — for me to take any of your assertions seriously.”
Yes. Dittos.
“A few uncommitted conservative voters were shocked to hear about Romney’s lifelong support for Roe v Wade and abortion on demand.”
I would be shocked too, since saying that is akin to implying that Fred Thompson is pro-choice based on his pro-choice 1994 comments.
Surely, you will be telling the whole story and not just one side of it... that he acted pro-life as Mass Governor in vetoing bills that impacted the issue, and now supports overturning Roe v Wade and appointing pro-life judges.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/24/romneys_challenge.html#more
“You know, there has been — I have to make a confession — an evolution in my position.” - George HW Bush, 1984
BS!
I'm getting tired of you Romneyites lying about Reagan to lift up Mitt Boy's faltering campaign. This is all about Romney calling Reagan "adamantly pro-choice" --- a bold face lie --- as a way of diverting attention away from his own piss poor record on abortion. BTW, This isn't about Reagan, GHW Bush, John McCain, GW BUsh Sam Brownback or anyone else for that matter. This is all about Mitt Boy and his shifts on the abortion issue just before his run for president.
>>>>>Romney was in office for only 4 years, he doesn’t have a 30 year record on anything.
Don't give me that crapola. Mitt Romney has made public statements about being pro-abortion from the early 1970`s through 2005, when he suddenly had an epiphany and became a pro-lifer.
>>>>>>Yet we give Reagan a pass for this ... and for not really moving the ball on abortion much, because he was a pro-life leader.
Wrong! There was no need to give a pass to Reagan and for good reason. The 1967 Therapeutic Abortion Act that Reagan signed into law did not grant abortions on demand. It wasn't a liberal abortion legislation. It was specific to the exceptions of substantial risk that would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the woman, along with rape and incest. It was advertised as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the difficult abortion cases.
Most conservatives do see Reagan's accomplishments on the abortion issue to be significant. I posted the following list to you before. I suggest you read it this time.
Reagan's record on abortion:
*Reagan supported legislation that would allow for a challenge of Roe vs. Wade, while promoting a Human Life amendment to the US Constitution.
*Reagan adopted the "Mexico City Policy" halting federal aid to private groups promoting abortions abroad.
*The Reagan admin cut off funding to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities because the global agency violated U.S. law by participating in China's mandatory abortion program.
*The Reagan admin adopted regulations prohibiting federally funded "family planning clinics" from promoting abortion as birth control.
*Reagan himself introduced the issue of fetal pain into the public debate over abortion.
*The Reagan White House blocked use of federal money for research using the tissue of aborted babies. A forerunner to banning partial birth abortion.
*The Reagan admin helped win approval of the "Danforth Amendment," which said federally funded educational institutions could not be guilty of "sex discrimination" for refusing to pay for abortions.
*The Reagan admin was key in enactment of laws protecting the right to life of handicapped newborns.
*Reagan designated a National Sanctity of Human Life Day, to recognize the value of life at all stages.
*Reagan was the first Prez to address the annual WashDC March for Life. An annual event Reagan always spoke at.
*Reagan was America's first pro-life President, post Roe v Wade. His essay, "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation" spelled out Reagan's strong pro-life position.
If you posted that, you'd be a liar. Fred has been a life long conservative and had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate.
Like Reagan, Fred didn't support Roe v Wade or abortion on demand at any time in his life.
Old Mitt Boy can't say that. For 30+ years Romney supported Roe v Wade and abortion on demand as a Constitutional right. Of course there is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about a woman having a right to kill her unborn child.
Fred has been out of office and thereby unable to vote on abortion legislation for the last five years, not the last ten years. A few more recent pro-life votes from FRed.
Military Abortions, S. 2549 (Roll Call Vote No. 134) The Senate voted to kill an amendment that would have provided abortions in military hospitals. The vote was 50-49, 20 June 2000. Fred opposed the amendment.
Morning After Pill, HR 4577 (Roll Call Vote No. 169) The Senate refused to kill an amendment stopping the use of federal funds to distribute the “morning after” pill on school grounds. The vote was 41-54, 30 June 2000. Fred supported the amendment.
Government Payment for Military Abortions. S. 2514 (Roll Call 160) The amendment would allow military women and dependents of military personnel stationed overseas access to government-provided abortions. ACU opposed this taxpayer funding of abortions, but it was adopted 52-40 on 21 June 2002. The bill was passed (52-40) Fred opposed this bill
What Fred has done for pro-life movement in recent years, is have two children late in his life. Which gave Fred an even greater respect for human life and the unborn child. A big reason Fred is running for POTUS, is his concern for America's future and his childrens future.
Right, but my candidate supports the ban on abortion after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, and yours, apparently, says he does not (see video linked in post #43). Do you see any other analysis of that video?
Very nice votes.
See post #31.
So, you expect me to believe what Romney says on the abortion issue?
Not on your life.
The fact is, what I posted is true. With just 17 amendments in 220 years, the chances of getting a Reagan style Human Life amendment passed into law, is about slim to none. The video in question shows Fred saying the federal governemnt has no business in the issue either way. That is called federalism. The states controlled the abortion issue prior to Roe v Wade. A return to that standard is most acceptable. Especially when one considers there is no viable option that currently exists.
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.