Paul Weyrich Convinced Mitt Romney "has sincerely converted" to pro-life side

LifeSite News ^ | 11/07/07 | Meg Jalsevac

[Reaganesque]

WASHINGTON, DC, November 7, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Mitt Romney's campaign for President received a major shot in the arm on Monday in the form of an official endorsement from well-known conservative leader and chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, Paul Weyrich.  Despite a lingering uncertainty for many conservatives about Romney's authentic conservative persona due to his notorious 'flip-flopping' in recent years, Weyrich's endorsement joins a growing number of similar Romney endorsements from other notable conservative leaders.

Weyrich is the founder of the Heritage Foundation and current chairman of the Free Congress Foundation.  He is considered a major leader by most in conservative circles and has written and worked for years to bolster both the social and religious conservative movements in America.

For Mitt Romney, Weyrich's endorsement is monumental.  From the very onset of the campaign trail, Romney's campaign has worked feverishly to portray the candidate as the only suitable, and viable, contender worthy of the conservative vote. 

To that end, Romney has previously vied for similar endorsements from other conservative leaders. With Weyrich's endorsement, the Romney campaign can more realistically hope to attract further endorsements and, perhaps eventually, the necessary conservative votes to win the Republican nomination.

From the very early days of the campaign trail, the 2008 primary race has been frequently muddied with accusations that the leading Republican candidates are, in fact, barely more socially conservative than the leading Democrats.  For example, leading GOP contender, Rudy Guiliani has publicly admitted to being pro-abortion and pro-gay rights and just last week Fred Thompson admitted that he would not run on the pro-life platform of the Republican party because that would, in effect, criminalize "young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors…"

Weyrich's endorsement took some conservatives by surprise as just recently Weyrich published an article which did not seem to portray the same degree of confidence in Romney's record or abilities.  Referring to Romney, Weyrich said, "If he had not flip-flopped and were not a Mormon he would be the ideal candidate. He yet may be. He looks and sounds like a President."

Weyrich Addresses Romney's Flip-Flopping

When asked if Romney's history of 'flip-flopping' on life issues in the past concerned him, Weyrich told LifeSiteNews, "I am concerned about it but I have spoken with him at length and I am convinced that he has sincerely converted to the pro-life side and consequently will be with us if elected President.  I understand he has flip-flopped but a lot of politicians have.  I take the man at his word.  I think he has a lot of ability to present himself to the American public."

 
As Gorver Norquist of the Americans for Tax Reform commented to The Boston Globe, "Weyrich's endorsement will speak loudly to conservatives in general - guys who care about guns and taxes and everything else, but especially religious conservatives."

In the official endorsement statement issued by Romney's campaign office, Weyrich was quoted saying, "Governor Romney has outlined a blueprint to build a stronger America rooted in our common conservative principles.  With a clear conservative vision to move America forward, he will strengthen our economy, our military, and our families."

In an earlier NewsMax interview, Weyrich had referred to Romney as someone who "could be supported" and "the best campaigner."  Weyrich said, "I think he is somebody who is rushing toward the movement trying to present himself as a conservative and in some ways it's more useful to have somebody like that."

Weyrich also explained to LifeSiteNews that he thought Romney could present a realistic challenge should Senator Clinton receive the Democratic nomination.  "Half the country doesn't like her and, as a consequence, any Republican would have a chance against her.  Right now [Romney] is down in the polls but he was down in the polls in New Hampshire and South Carolina and he has come up.  I think given time and given the resources that he has, I think he will be able to present himself to the American public."

Weyrich Wants to Stop Giuliani From Getting Nomination

Weyrich also offered justification of his endorsement saying, "I felt the race would boil down to Giuliani verse Romney and I certainly do not support Giuliani.  I felt there probably would be an effect if Romney wins New Hampshire and now it looks like he has a shot at winning South Carolina and if all that happens it is going to have an effect on Super Tuesday so I felt he would be the best candidate to stop Giuliani"

Weyrich has been quoted in several other articles voicing his opposition to Giuliani saying, "I'm not for Giuliani. I want to try to stop him from getting the nomination."

When asked about possible resistance that Romney might face in regards to his Mormon religion, Weyrich admitted that that could be one of the biggest problems of the campaign.  "[H]e has got to make sure that the American public understands we are not electing him head of the Baptist convention - we are electing him President of the United States and what is important are his public policy decisions - beyond his theological stance."

Others Not so Confident About Romney on Abortion and Homosexuality

While Weyrich expressed confidence in Romney's ability to stay strong to his recently found pro-life convictions especially if he can surround himself with supportive personnel, Brian Camenker of MassResistance.org had no such confidence. 

Camenker told LifeSiteNews, "Look at the record.  His transition team in Massachusetts included the most prolific gay activist in the state and not a single actual conservative." 

Camenker said that, since the announcement of Weyrich's endorsement, he has been swamped with emails expressing disappointment in the news.

Referring to Weyrich's endorsement, Camenker commented, "A lot of people feel that this represents the death of the conservative movement in America in many ways.  Paul Weyrich signed our letter to Mitt Romney, he knows intimately how Mitt Romney subverted the constitution of Massachusetts in regards to homosexual marriage.  He signed a letter that basically rebuked Romney for all of that." 

"It's a complete sell-out to principle.  One of the things that the conservative movement has represented is standing by principle no matter what and what he [Weyrich] is essentially saying is that Mitt Romney seems one of the least offensive of the top tier Republicans, so I am going to support him anyway.  By saying I am going to take the lesser of several evils, that is how we got ourselves in the mess that we are in."

Many conservative throughout the nation have mobilized across the nation to strongly remind the Republican party that social conservativism on life and family issues must be a strong characteristic of any possible nominee if they hope to garner the conservative vote. 

Influential James Dobson Has Not Yet Endorsed Any Candidate

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family has not officially endorsed a candidate for the election and has been vocal about the possibility of supporting a third-party candidate should the GOP nomination go to candidate that has not been consistently pro-life.

In an October opinion piece, he wrote, "I firmly believe that the selection of a president should begin with a recommitment to traditional moral values and beliefs. Those include the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage, and other inviolable pro-family principles. Only after that determination is made can the acceptability of a nominee be assessed."

Without giving any inclination as to his candidate of preference, Dobson continued saying, "The other approach, which I find problematic, is to choose a candidate according to the likelihood of electoral success or failure. Polls don't measure right and wrong; voting according to the possibility of winning or losing can lead directly to the compromise of one's principles. In the present political climate, it could result in the abandonment of cherished beliefs that conservative Christians have promoted and defended for decades. Winning the presidential election is vitally important, but not at the expense of what we hold most dear."

If Romney Wins Nomination Strong Promises Must be Obtained From Him

When asked by NewsMax for his opinion on the possibility of supporting a third party candidate should Giuliani obtain the nomination, Weyrich said, "If he does get it, and I'm not sure that he will, it seems to me that we need to negotiate with him and determine whether or not we can pin down a whole series of promises that he would make [and then make] a judgment as to whether those promises are any good."

Romney also holds favorable endorsements from other conservative leaders such as Mary Ann Glendon, newly nominated US ambassador to the Holy See, Bob Jones, Jack Willke and well-known pro-life lawyer James Bopp, Jr.

Robertson Stuns Conservatives With Endorsement of Giuliani

However, just this week influential evangelist Pat Robertson shocked many in conservative circles by endorsing Rudy Giuliani calling him "more than acceptable to people of faith."  Surprisingly, Robertson dismissed concerns over Giuliani's very liberal social views on life and family saying that they "pale into insignificance" when compared to Giuliani's ability to address the issue of terrorism.

Operation Rescue is so incensed with Robertson's move that it has called for a protest outside Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network studios on Saturday at 1:30 p.m.

In a press release Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry states, "Rudy has perfect credentials on social issues like child-killing, partial birth abortion, federal funding for 'poor women' to have abortions, and so-called homosexual marriage or civil unions…"
 
In similar news, former presidential candidate Sam Brownback officially offered his endorsement to Senator John McCain praising him for consistently "standing up for human rights around the world, including a consistent 24-year pro-life record of protecting the rights of the unborn."  Brownback's official statement asserted that, "John McCain is the only candidate who can rally the Reagan coalition of conservatives, independents and conservative Democrats needed to defeat Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat in the general election next year."

[kevkrom]

Your argument is specious. “post #44” shows several inconsequential contributions to several organizations.

1. Romney had never been endorsed by any such group in the past, and in fact, was routinely opposed by them.

2. Immediately prior to running for President, he makes 5-figure donations to said groups.

3. Romney had never donated to the groups, or any similar groups in the past.

4. These groups suddenly start supporting Romney.

What does it prove? Nothing.

What is an unbiased observer going to think about these facts? That the donations are directly tied to the endorsements.

[redgirlinabluestate]

I am haven’t attacked anyone. I respond to erroneous posts about my candidate. My posts are all factual. I support the candidate ready, willing and able to lead the country in the right direction and the one who is in support of ending abortion on demand. Oh, and don’t forget, the one who can knock off Rudy and Hillary.

[kevkrom]

I am haven’t attacked anyone. I respond to erroneous posts about my candidate.

LOL! You try to indirectly smear Thompson by linking his home state in a pathetic attempt at false moral equivalence, but you haven;t attacked anyone.

You respond to FACTS about your candidate by spinning and attempting to draw false parallels between his egregious history and that of true conservatives. Not only is it spin for your candidate, but you attack the credentials and memories of these others by this type of behavior.

[Constantine XIII]

Where can I get me a huntin license? LOL

[redgirlinabluestate]

Romney had never been endorsed by any such group in the past, and in fact, was routinely opposed by them.

This is false. What's the good of debating if you purposefully ignore factual evidence that has been presented to you in prior posts? A prior post specifically stated that Romney received the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life back in 1994 and continues to receive their support.

[kevkrom]

Okay, correction. He received one, reluctant endorsement prior to him adopting an even more liberal position in his 2002 run, where he not only told Planned Parenthood that he supported Roe v. Wade but that he was in favor of taxpayer-funded abortion, the latter being a departure from his slightly-less-liberal 1994 position.

[EternalVigilance]

Wake up. Romney is a supreme liar, and a lifelong liberal pro-abort. “Conversions” on the road to Des Moines are only believed by the supremely naive.

[kevkrom]

EV, he can’t be a liar. After all, he has such nice hair...

[EternalVigilance]

You betcha.

I’m amazed at how many threads my new tagline fits in on...

[redgirlinabluestate]

Now it's gone from an attack to an indirect smear. LOL.

Pointing out that other candidates come from states that fund abortion is just a fact. You were trying to use that as something unique to Romney as if he had something to do with it. You were the attacker and/or indirect smearer. :-)

Also, Romney was never "in favor" of taxpayer-funded abortion. In 2002, he agreed to maintain the status quo in his state, where @ 75% of the electorate were in favor.

My candidate maintains the preferable position going forward.

[jdm]

Ironically, the Aw Jeez guy kinda resembles Mitt, don’t he?

Yes, except Mitt has immeasurably better hair and can tell you if it's going to rain tomorrow.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Ugh, with attitudes like these, no wonder we haven’t made more progress. :-(

[kevkrom]

Yeah. Next time you post an attack on Thompson, I'll be sure to quote you're little "who me? I don't attack anybody" spin.

Also, Romney was never "in favor" of taxpayer-funded abortion. In 2002, he agreed to maintain the status quo in his state, where @ 75% of the electorate were in favor.

That's not what he put on his signed pledge to Planned Parenthood. He indicated support for taxpayer-funded abortions, along with agreement that Roe v. Wade was a correct decision by the Supreme Court.

[EternalVigilance]

We “haven’t made more progress” because of the “leaders” who have sold out the cause. They’re more interested in protecting their own little featherbed than they are in ending abortion. Their support for Romney is just further proof of what many of us have known for quite awhile.

[tumblindice]

YOU’RE HAVING MY BABY
Mitt Romney and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, 2007

(Mr. Romney: tenor) Having my baby,
what a lovely way of saying how much you love me.
(Choir: basso profundo) Having my baby,
what a lovely way of saying what you’re thinking of me.
I can see it
Your face is glowing
I can see it in your eyes
I’m happy in knowing...

That your having my baby,
you’re the woman I love and I love what it’s doing to you.
Having my baby,
you’re a woman in love and I love what’s going through you.
The need inside you
I see it showing
Oh, the seed inside you baby do you feel it growing.
Are you happy in knowing...

That you’re having my baby . . . .

[EternalVigilance]

Yep. And, of course, RomneyCare, aka CommonwealthCare, which Mitt signed, is providing taxpayer-funded abortions TODAY.

Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, and even Carville, think it’s AWESOME.

[ejonesie22]

In his case probably Neiman Marcus...

[ejonesie22]

However, David Osteen, the Director of the organization Jim Bopp represented, National Right to Life, seems to like Fred....

And has no ties to any campaign...

Odd that...

[Colofornian]

It was, because that WAS a criticism that would be used against him. It doesn’t mean they AGREED with the criticism, but clearly a guy that spoke as a pro-choicer for so many years was going to be labelled an opportunist.

But that doesn't mean it was a journalistic editorial insertion. It's quite obvious that a branding PowerPoint by branding consultants working on behalf of the Mittster is going to say, "Hey, did ya ever consider the 'Phoney' and 'Political Opportunist' side of you?" But it was up to the branding consultants to isolate his perceived weaknesses; therefore, it wasn't the Globe journalists who inserted these critiques.

They were merely parroting perceptions already recognized even within the Romney camp.

But Romney has an excellent organization...

OK, I'm not looking for or voting for an Organizer-in-Chief. (If I wanted that, I'd told Martha Stewart to run long ago).

He’s a real leader...

Yes and no. Does he have leadership skills? (I've never seen them questioned; so there must be some kind of consensus he does). By "no" I mean that a true leader worth following is going to be authentic, true. Since he authentically believes he's either a god-to-be, or a god-in-embryo, I'm sorry, but can you really fault me for not wanting someone with a Messiah complex to be in the White House?

And in this polarized time, we do need a candidate who is “attractive” to independents and even democrats.

OK, I guess you haven't seen the polls. When you break down the groups as to whom has the highest "unfavorable" views of Mormons, the first highest group is Evangelicals. The second highest group is the religiously unaffiliated (who are more likely to be Democrats and Independents). A full 30% of the religiously unaffiliated have an unfavorable view of Mormons (with 18% with "no opinion"). The 3rd highest group is Black Protestant (28%).

IOW, Mitt won't draw from at least 40% of the Evangelical right. He certainly won't draw from the religiously unaffiliated who already tend to vote left, anyway; and he won't draw from the Black Protestant.

As for the rest of the center-right voters, already more than 1 in 5 folks who say they have an "unfavorable" view of LDS have been influenced most in that opinion by the media (more than "religious beliefs").

And as Laura Ingraham said on her program this week, when she said she'd be tough on the issues when talking with candidates, she said her "toughness" would be nothing compared to the MSM's output in '08.

We can get that by running a candidate that mimics liberal positions, like Rudy, or we can get that by running a candidate who is personally appealing, like Romney (and maybe Fred, that remains to be seen).

Yeah, that's what the GOP wants: Mimeographed liberal Democrats as our nominee [extra sarc sauce on that one].

From what I’ve read from the opposition (gay groups, abortion groups, womens groups) Mitt doesn’t appeal to ANY of them on the issues. A real RINO is one who tries to appeal on the issues of the moderates.

OK, what does that even say? That Mitt's not to the left of Hillary?

Listen, if we had a prominent candidate who is as much to the right of Mitt as Clinton & Company is to the left of Mitt, we (we being pro-life, pro-family folks), too, could say "Mitt doesn’t appeal to ANY of us on the issues."

A real RINO is one who tries to appeal on the issues of the moderates.

No, that's your mold of a "real RINO." A cleverer RINO is one who weaves and rolls, who rope-a-dopes enough so that when you try to connect, you either get low-impact nudges or pure air ("hey, my jaw moved").

[Colofornian]

A prior post specifically stated that Romney received the endorsement of Massachusetts Citizens for Life back in 1994 and continues to receive their support.

OK, how many posts have we seen on threads that say Robertson's endorsement of Guiliani says more about PR than it does about RG? Well, the same is true here: A pro-life group's endorsement of a brazen pro-abortion candidate says more about the endorser's discernment than it does about the endorsee.