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."

[Colofornian]

Maintaining the status quo is NOT a "pro-life record"...[Kevkrom]

It is when you're in a bluer-than-blue state with an 85% Democrat legislature.[Spiff]

Yeah, I can hear it now. MR wins the nomination. Somehow (maybe due to a Clinton scandal), he wins POTUS.

Spiffy spinners would then come on board telling us that the Romney administration maintained the pro-abortion status quo because he was dealing with a bluer-than-blue Congress and 85% high-level Democrat judges around the nation.

[kevkrom]

Yeah, I know. The “status quo” is, unfortunately, abortion on demand. I don’t want someone defending it and maintaining it, I want it reversed.

[Colofornian]

I would think some pro-life people need to reevaluate their positions (if not their mental acuity) when they are slamming the only electable, pro-life candidate who is ready, willing and able to lead the fight and champion the cause to end abortion on demand.

OK, if this rookie "pro-lifer" is our champion pro-life crusader--this rookie who w/in a half-yr's conversion touted his committed "pro-choice" stance (5/27/05) & then signed compulsary healthcare w/an abortion component into law--then it's time for us to have that whispered conversation with wombs all across America.

[CharlesWayneCT]

We don’t have evidence for Paul or his foundation getting money.

He also spoke with these groups.

The Heritage Foundation was working with him on the medical insurance plan. Their support of that work would be based on their work with it, and with Romney, not a small amount of money they gave.

Beyond the appearance of Romney looking to burnish his credentials, I see nothing to suggest these groups are suspect.

It’s like the NRA thing. Did Romney join because he suddenly felt he was drawn to the group? Most likely, he wanted “NRA member” on his resume. Does that mean that the NRA has sold out? No.

But the NRA did work with Romney on the AWB, to minimize the damage to be caused by a liberal democrat legislature. Could that make the NRA more sympathetic to Romney? Yes, if they liked how he responded to them and how he handled the issue. If they then said nice things, would it be because he joined their group, or if he gave them money? It would be more likely it was because of the work they did with him.

I’m not without misgivings, about every candidate who has a chance. I just don’t see how attacking traditionally conservative organizations without any evidence helps the cause of conservatism, or is an honest addressing of issues.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I’ve never met a Mormon who took the “god-to-be” or “god-in-embryo” as any kind of messiah complex. Doesn’t mean there aren’t some, just that, like most religions, the average followers don’t necessarily adhere to the strict interpretation of the tenets.

There are many tenets of specific christian churches that the average follower doesn’t buy, but I’m not going to list them because the ones who DO buy them will be upset with me attacking their religion.

[CharlesWayneCT]

It’s so hard to trust those pro-life groups, they are always going around endorsing abortionists.

Oddly, when the Thompson is pro-abortion threads first started, the pro-life organizations endorsement of him from that time was used to prove he wasn’t.

Of course, there’s a few here who don’t buy that either.

[CharlesWayneCT]

actually, I think they’d say it was because the Supreme Court doesn’t allow us to accomplish any more than we already have. If Romney maintained the current status quo, it would be much better than if Hillary wins and reverses PBA ban, fed funding for abortion, fed funding for embryonic stem cell research, foreign aid to abortionists, etc.

What is the next non-judicial federal fight on abortion, as you see it? Maybe if we knew what it was, we could ask Romney how he feels about it.

We know that he supports the federal human life amendment, which has no chance of passing and which the President has no say in. Anything real in terms of legislation that we are pushing?

[Colofornian]

I’ve never met a Mormon who took the “god-to-be” or “god-in-embryo” as any kind of messiah complex. Doesn’t mean there aren’t some, just that, like most religions, the average followers don’t necessarily adhere to the strict interpretation of the tenets.

Re: "average followers"...Since 80% of Mormons are either deemed non-temple worthy or are outright "jack Mormons," I suppose you might be able to make the case of what you said about "average followers" if you are drawing from the 80% of the pool.

But that still leaves 20% who are deemed "temple-worthy" and therefore would remain "god-worthy" re: their goal of what they call "eternal progression" to the highest level of heaven--what they call "the celestial kingdom." This is not some "follow-the-yellow-brick-road-to-the-Wizard" myth to this pool of devout LDS. You don't commit 10% of your wealth to what might be considered as a "dreamy maybe."

Mitt, a former 2-time LDS bishop, is in that 20%. He is NOT your "average follower."

[CharlesWayneCT]

First, unless you are a strict-prolifer, you would support abortion to save the life of the mother, in which case you would want medical insurance to cover that. I’m not saying you SHOULD or WOULD, just pointing out that there are pro-lifers who support a life-of-the-mother exception.

There are also a subset of pro-lifers who support rape and incest exceptions.

And another impure group who would support a real health-of-the-mother exception.

There are some who oppose abortion, but only after a period of gestation. Since abortion is mandated by the court, we don’t dwell on the differences here, but we will confront them at some point.

I do not think that an individual buying a policy in Mass. is required to get insurance that covers abortion.

However, in all my years with health insurance through my employer, I’ve never had access to insurance that didn’t cover “medically necessary” abortions.

Did I consider not getting coverage? No. Sorry.

Fred Thompson, Duncan Hunter, Tom Tancredo — none of them are going to change the federal government’s health care to remove medically necessary abortions (medically necessary unfortunately as defined by liberals who are pro-abortion).

Current medicaid rules require coverage for abortions for the life of the mother, and for rape and incest. I haven’t heard any candidate calling to change that, rape and incest were added in 1993.

I don’t like that tax dollars pay for abortions. I don’t like that mandated coverage includes abortions, although when it’s paid for by private funds it’s slightly less onerous.

I think an exception should be offered, but practically speaking, few people are going to sign up for medical coverage that specifically excludes a subset of abortions. The cost of coverage will be identical — the cost of abortion is low relative to the cost of health care, and it wouldn’t pay for a medical plan to have separate paths of coverage for a few pennies difference.

So while it’s a complaint, it’s one with limited scope. It’s like moving the deck chairs on the titanic. Fun for the purists who think the ship should look nice as it sinks, but, like so much we argue about here, on the fringe of the real issues.

I’d hate to see a pro-Roe supreme court pick because pro-lifers were too upset over private insurance coverage for abortion so they stayed home and allowed a Democrat to win.

This isn’t about compromising on our own principles about saving life, it’s about us realizing the reality of what can and can’t be done, what has the most value and what is window dressing, and making difficult choices for the best good. We move down the road.

When a hitchiker gets an offer, they say where they are going. The stupid ones turn down offers to go part way, the ones that get into any car going in the right direction make it to their destination (OK, except if they are picked up by a serial killer :-)

[Colofornian]

actually, I think they’d say it was because the Supreme Court doesn’t allow us to accomplish any more than we already have.

Not so. The old axiom applies: "Follow the $" The Judiciary has absolutely nothing to do with our taxpayer $ propping up Planned Parenthood domestically & internationally.

Rudy G's given $ to Planned Parenthood throughout the 90s. Ann Romney gave $ to Planned Parenthood. Romney's healthcare plan for MA made sure that the abortion industry was a "player" in the plan. The abortion industries weren't cut (and were probably increased in funding) during the 2003-2006 Massachussetts years and the New York City years under Rudy. (Both states are among the national leaders of aborting our next generation).

Where were the line-item slashing pens of these GOP leaders?

Hey, when you have such "leaders" "lead" by invisible ink in the areas where true pro-life leaders can make an active difference, then their invisibility as true leaders is obvious to everyone but those who'd rather look the other way.

[greyfoxx39]

I’ve never met a Mormon who took the “god-to-be” or “god-in-embryo” as any kind of messiah complex.

Just HOW MANY mormons have you met? Have you lived in a predominantly mormon area? Do you have mormon relatives? Just what makes you think the ones you DO know are telling you ALL of what they believe?

There are those here who are very familiar with all facets of mormons and mormonism, and in our experience, your statement is misleading. "Messiah" complex is an over-dramatization (purposeful?) of the automatic acceptance of those who "know" that their destiny is to be the god of their own planet. That is so ingrained that that acceptance of such in POTUS would be very troublesome.

Are YOU a mormon?

[Colofornian]

First, unless you are a strict-prolifer, you would support abortion to save the life of the mother, in which case you would want medical insurance to cover that. I’m not saying you SHOULD or WOULD, just pointing out that there are pro-lifers who support a life-of-the-mother exception.

OK, you need to take a closer look @ the MA healthcare plan. You'll see that it involves the abortion industry much more than you've been led to believe.

I do not think that an individual buying a policy in Mass. is required to get insurance that covers abortion.

No, but if you don't have coverage, then you are required to buy into the state plan, which DOES include it.

However, in all my years with health insurance through my employer, I’ve never had access to insurance that didn’t cover “medically necessary” abortions.

OK, let me set something straight here. There's REALLY only a few medically "necessary" cases for abortion. An ectopic pregnancy, for example. NO babies survive an ectopic pregnancy. They are doomed for a womb death. In this case, it is pure self-defense because an ectopic pregnancy will also result in the Mom's death.

Other than cases like these, there is no basis for what the insurance industry calls "therapeutic" abortion. Hello! Abortion is NOT THERAPY. Hello! The baby is NOT a disease!!!

Current medicaid rules require coverage for abortions for the life of the mother, and for rape and incest. I haven’t heard any candidate calling to change that, rape and incest were added in 1993.

Well, some rules are meant to be intentionally ignored. (For example, South Dakota doesn't comply & will do so for life endangerment only). This matter of funding is more Congressionally determined (vs. executive).

I’d hate to see a pro-Roe supreme court pick because pro-lifers were too upset over private insurance coverage for abortion so they stayed home and allowed a Democrat to win.

OK, again, you're not getting a comprehensive pix of abortion industry funding. The insurance industry is only funding one slice of the abortion industry. And the govt via Medicaid is even a smaller slice than that.

There's all kinds of federal Title $ that goes to the abortion industry, especially under things not directly related to abortion. There's also all kinds of $ funnelled under population control and contraceptive handouts to international entities like Intl Planned Parenthood.

A POTUS could wean the abortion industry off of taxpayer dollars. And when now we have GOP candidates like Rudy & Mitt whose wives have personally funded these industries (and Rudy himself has done so), then the issue goes well beyond Medicaid & insurance funding.

When a hitchiker gets an offer, they say where they are going. The stupid ones turn down offers to go part way, the ones that get into any car going in the right direction make it to their destination (OK, except if they are picked up by a serial killer :-)

Well, I like your analogy, because it does represent exactly where we are: Certainly you can make the case that voter (road) beggars can't necessarily be choosers (tho I BEG to disagree with the primaries, where, yes we DO have more of a choice than recognized). And, yes, as you realize, a serial killer in control is only going to add to the mayhem, not solve it.

If your daughter is stuck out on the freeway, it's better to "stay home" in her car in our culture than to "thumb it." Therefore, pro-abortion candidates like RG & phantom pro-life candidates like MR will only result in larger # of "stay home" stranded voters.

[ansel12]

“When a hitchiker gets an offer, they say where they are going. The stupid ones turn down offers to go part way, the ones that get into any car going in the right direction make it to their destination “

---

When you have spent years of your life hitchhiking around the United States you learn not to take just any ride.

There are exits, types of exits, even cities to avoid getting dropped off at, Tucson and the western outskirts of New Orleans are nightmarish.

Even the freshest rookies (stupid ones) soon learn not to give up a prime on ramp, for an on ramp on the outskirts of town that has almost no one getting on the freeway, that is going a great distance.

Smart hitchhikers become very choosy about accepting rides.
Anyone that claims different is not an experienced hitchhiker.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Romney is running a weak fourth in the polls right now.

When is the national primary?

The primary election is won state by state. Mitt leads in Iowa, NH and now South Carolina. Probably MI as well. He has moved into second place in FL.

It's Mitt vs. Rudy and Mitt is the one with upward momentum. Rudy is struggling to maintain his lead (down 10 pts. in CA) while Fred is tanking.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yes. Any analogy that consists of 3 sentences can be better explained in a dozen.

If I were to try to apply the distinction (which I understand, you don’t want to be dropped off where you have little chance of getting picked up), the suggestion would be that there are some places “on the way” from abortion on demand to banning all abortion where, if we stop, we’ll never get to start again.

Except it was just an analogy, politically there are no “bad on-ramps”, no places where if you get to you can’t go further.

In fact, that extension of the analogy might lead one to believe we’d be better with a LESS pure person, because maybe going just a LITTLE way will make it much easier to go further later, where if we get an 80%-er, maybe after going that 80% there will be no political will to go further.

That’s not an inapt analogy I guess, but whenever I’ve discussed the “compromise problem” it’s always been that if we compromise, we don’t want to get TOO FAR to where we want to go, because the more we get, the less pressure there is to get more.

Which would argue for a less faithful, not more faithful, candidate.

My point was simply that we are so far down the road that over the next 4 years we don’t need much from our president to make gains. We really just need them NOT to support any reversals, and to put good judges into the court system.

[CharlesWayneCT]

For some reason we have several mormons working on the project I work on. Some are good friends of mine.

And I’m a guy that talks religion.

I’m a presbyterian (PCA).

[TheLion]

Bttt!

[ansel12]

“When a hitchiker gets an offer, they say where they are going. The stupid ones turn down offers to go part way, the ones that get into any car going in the right direction make it to their destination “

---

Wrong, the writer is posing as knowledgeable on a subject that he doesn’t know.

[greyfoxx39]

Well, once you have dealt for years with more than “several” and some who are NOT good friends, you can post an informed opinion.

[greyfoxx39]

Have you told your friends you are presbyterian (PCA)? Do you know what Joseph Smith, founder of mormonisn and it's first "Prophet" said about presbyterians?

Have your friends told you about this? From Joseph Smith's First Vision:

 

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself ^adelivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I ^bsaw two ^cPersonages, whose brightness and ^dglory defy all description, ^estanding above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My ^fBeloved ^gSon. Hear Him!

  18 My object in going to ^ainquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all ^awrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those ^bprofessors were all ^ccorrupt; that: “they ^ddraw near to me with their lips, but their ^ehearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the ^fcommandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the ^gpower thereof.”

  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself ^alying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, ^bmother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”