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."

[FastCoyote]

[For Mitt Romney, Weyrich’s endorsement is monumental. ]

I don’t think Weyrich has had coattails in a long long time.

“He’s a real leader...” regarding Romney.

That’s why I’m voting for Bret Favre for president! And he can take a shot to the head like no other!

[redgirlinabluestate]

Wow, what a way to attract people to our cause.

Thank goodness people have the intellectual reasoning power to discern when they are wrong and change for the better. I did. I was pro-choice and now I have spent a good deal of time, effort and money supporting the pro-life cause. I've brought a lot of friends along with me.

They often say, the convert is the most powerful weapon a cause can have. I think that is true quite often.

In any event, you are arguing for someone whose conversion hasn't even reached the point that Mitt's has -- supporting the HLA. So lecturing me and other Romney supporters because our candidate's position is not old and weathered enough falls on deaf ears.

Thank God for converts to our cause.

[MHGinTN]

At first, I was pleased to read that Romney claims he has adjusted his position honestly. After finding out that he pushed a helathcare program that pays for abortion on demand and that he favors using ‘leftover’ embryo beings for dismemberment and experiemntation, well, I am convinced this was just another move to hoodwink folks. Mitt is a liberal ta heart and that makes it easier for him to shift mouthed positions without actual change of heart. His ‘position’ on life issues seems to reinforce such a perspective of him as slick, too slick. He’s a Republican version of sinkEmperor clinton, and we don’t need that.

[MHGinTN]

Mitt has a 35 year history of being pro-choice, proudly, since he touted it as an asset when running for office in liberal massatwosh!ts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

[Reno232]

Well GF, as you know, I am Mormon & have dealt w/ thousands for years some of which are indeed NOT good friends or even good members of the church. I have friends of mine who are non-members who know hundreds of Mormons & have for years that have the highest respect for those members as well as the church. Your rants leave me to believe you know very little about the church despite your past membership. Not uncommon for those who were not active very long.

That being said, I’m not sure what your point is. Surely you know there very bad examples of every ‘Christian” denomination that can be thought of. Can you imagine if Christians were thought of by the example of Bill & Hillary Clinton? How about Swaggart, Baker, Haggard, etc.? I could come up w/ a list of BAD “Christians” that would make this server crash! Does that mean that “Christianity” is bad? For that matter, I would hate for someone to judge “Christianity” based on the way YOU & others treat many of your fellow Freepers here.

I know you think you’re doing the Lord’s work, but is this really what He taught? I recall Charity & love being a big part of the way that we’re to deal w/ our fellow man, including enemies. For the better part, I don’t see our side displaying the vitriol that some here display on a regular basis. By their fruits ye shall know them indeed.

Mankind is flawed, all mankind! How we deal w/ those flawed individuals is a big key for those who follow Christ, regardless of the religion.

[MHGinTN]

"By their fruits ye shall know them indeed." INDEED!

The condescension, threats, smarmy slurs, assaults on the Church Fathers, denial of the Trinity, diminution of God's nature, denigration of Jesus as but a created being, spinning the fabrications of Joe Smith, half-truths regarding his sexual exploitation of other men's wives, and outright lies coming from Mormonism apologists, day after day at FR is a really telling basket of fruit.

[Colofornian]

So lecturing me and other Romney supporters because our candidate's position is not old and weathered enough falls on deaf ears.

"Old & weathered?" What? You somehow have fallen for the distortion that Mitt didn't have any opportunities to have his newfound pro-life convictions exposed to the elements in 2005 & 2006? (Have you been living in a cave & haven't had a chance to have your discernment weathered? No internet to explore for you?)

Element Exposure opportunity #1: May 27, 2005 press conference: What did Mitt Romney say? "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice."

OK, rookies "strike out" more often than veterans. Let's take a look @ Commonwealth Care, MA's healthcare he signed into law April of '06.

Element Exposure opportunity #2: As governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137).

What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood:

It (chptr 58 of the Acts of 2006) reads: : “SECTION 3. Chapter 6A of the General Laws is hereby amended by inserting after section 16I the following 6 sections:...Section 16M. (a) There shall be a MassHealth payment policy advisory board. The board shall consist of the secretary of health and human services or his designee, who shall serve as chair, the commissioner of health care financing and policy, and 12 other members:...1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts...”

What's distorted in all this is not just comparing notes as to "Well, was Mitt really pro-life in '05 & '06 after his 'conversion.'?"

What we really need to do is to hold Mitt Romney up not by our "old & weathered" pro-life standards, but let's hold Mitt Romney up to Mitt Romney's pro-life standards. And what is that standard? Let's let Mitt speak for himself:

As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.

OK. Mitt plainly says here that EVERY TIME (in New England New English that means "Every Time") abortion expansion came across his gubernatorial desk in MA, he "vetoed it."

So the question on the table is: Does Commonwealth Care, signed into law by Mitt Romney on April 12, 2006, expand abortion in MA?

Answer: Yes. (1) All MA citizens are MANDATED to have health insurance & creates a subsidy for those who can't afford it, including poor women. (2) Since MA law requires abortion to be covered, this creates a new subsidy of abortions by the Mitt's government.

FACT: When a state govt creates new entitlements that provide additional subsidies for abortions upon women who would not have been "eligible" for such abortions in '05, that is called "abortion rights expansion."

FACT: When a state govt. invites Planned Parenthood into a new mandated socialized healthcare program, that is abortion industry privilege expansion.

Romney could have vetoed Section 3 on that latter question. He didn't.

No one has forced Romney to try his hand at historical revisionism. He could have said that in all but one case, he pre-empted abortion rights expansion. But he didn't.

[Reno232]

Ah MHG, I see the sandbox (or perhaps litter box in this case) is alive & well w/ you. I hope someday you can spend more time addressing the content of a post in a civil manner than attacks on posters & the things they consider sacred. I’ll invite the readers to research our posts & judge between me & thee & see who tries harder to have civil discussions & who tries sling mud & vitriol.

Despite that, I wish you the best my FRiend. Have a great weekend & try to think happy thoughts. I get to spend tomorrow & Monday conducting High School varsity basketball tryouts. It’s the most difficult part of coaching. Wish me luck.

[nowandlater]

What does MassResistance have to say about their previous number one signatory, Paul Weyrich, rejecting their claims and now is supporting Mitt? This blows up their credibility when their biggest supporters dumps them and their trash to the curb!

I love it! The Mitt haters are stalling and there is nothing they can do about it! They are just the same number of people posting the same garbage over and over again. Whereas, the Mitt supporters are starting to grow. These people look at Mitt’s record warts and all and find some very positive traits and yes, they also find that his record has many conservative accomplishments during his tenure as Governor. And that attracts them to his prospects as a candidate.

LOL, Look for more desperation tactics from the Mitt-a-phobes.

P.S. In regards to the religion issue, if Mitt can win over Bob Jones III then he can win over mostly anyone. The Clinton goons will doom their chances, because it has backfired in the past and it will royally backfire this time.

Now, if Mitt was in a cult like Catholicism, like MHGinTN faith, then it would be a very legitimate issue. Seriously, have you been to a Catholic worship service and compared it to a LDS service? In the Mormon service, the sacrament, they only talk about Jesus. In the Catholic service they have to babble in Latin to several statues/idols and then believe that Jesus’ literal, not symbolic, body is on their toungues. Eeeck!

[Ferox]

I want to believe Mitt, but I have a very difficult time with him. I suppose that as much as I try to separate his faith from his political aspirations, the Mormon issue still haunts me. Surely Mitt would not be so stupid as to run as a pro-life candidate and then act to the contrary. Whatever he might be, he is not stupid. JWH Bush should be lesson enough. The truth is that Mitt might be the GOP’s nominee.

[greyfoxx39]

I hope someday you can spend more time addressing the content of a post in a civil manner than attacks on posters & the things they consider sacred. I’ll invite the readers to research our posts & judge between me & thee & see who tries harder to have civil discussions & who tries sling mud & vitriol.

There IS a difference between ad hominem attacks on fellow FReepers and calling Joseph Smith a liar and adulterer.

WHO started with the "slinging mud and vitriol"? YOU personally attacked ME in post 145..."I would hate for someone to judge “Christianity” based on the way YOU & others treat many of your fellow Freepers here."

The name-calling by your mormon friends got so bad here I kept a list for a couple of months....I invite everyone to go back to early June, and see "“fraud”, “fake martyr” and “un-American!”Bigot", "basher" "Mormon Assaulter" " "Henceforth, you and your co-FR-theologians shall be known as the FR Flying Inmans, because in a secular setting you make a big fuss out of religion, and are a threat to hijack." "disgruntled ex-members and paranoid evangelicals." "miserable", "small", "petty" "as mad as a March hare" "The usual Mormon baiters on FR would make ol’ Lilburn proud. They are truly vile and hateful" and the truly vilest, posted by a mormon, "those who crucified our Lord. That is the company you are keeping when you level that charge".

And YOUR little contribution on 8/25, "You & FC (with his condoning the actions of Boggs & Ford) would have undoubtedly felt right at home during the crusades & inquisition. Wow! You really should be ashamed of yourselves as christians if nothing else. Something tells me that’s not the case. #339

These were posted in JUST the first three weeks of June with the exception of yours in August...there are many more instances of mormons calling others names BECAUSE we dare to oppose the fallacies of mormonism.

In going through your posting history, I see you were on some of these threads bemoaning the "vitriol" of the non-mormons, but I don't see a post from you suggesting your friends cease the name-calling.

You even post in SUPPORT of a FReeper who made a threat to "shame you off this forum" to another FReeper.

You might consider the beam in your own eye when bemoaning motes in the eyes of others.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Please, join us in the present so we can do the right thing for the future.

[MHGinTN]

Past actions, especially when they span 35 years and run right up to the present, are a clear indication of what a politician will do. Mitt Romney mouths ‘completely pro-life’ but his 35 years of actions mouth ‘compromise’ pro-choice’ utilitarian policy regarding embryonic human life’. He fooled me for a little while when he claimed to have had a change of heart upon considering commoditization of embryos. But he showed what he really will do when he stated clearly that he is for using ‘leftover’ embryo-aged humans for dismemberment and research. Spare us the Mittiac spin, please.

[Route66]

Please, join us in the present so we can do the right thing for the future.

Please join US in the present by getting behind a candidate who has a long time, proven conservative record and is polling even higher in the national polls than Mitt. In doing so you will help us defeat Rudy and then Hillary.

Vote for Fred Thompson.

[redgirlinabluestate]

No thanks. I consider tort reform and support for the HLA pretty important for shaping the future of the country. Fred doesn't support those things. I am also a bit wary of his McCain friendship and his refusal to sign the "no new taxes" pledge. But if he is lucky enough to win the nomination, of course I'll join you in supporting him!

While we may not agree on who should be our nominee, I do hope your hands are feeling better! :-)

[CharlesWayneCT]

You’d be surprised what some Presbyterians say about Baptists.

I have a very dim view of Joseph Smith. My Mormon friends know this, and we manage to get along despite our differences, because what we have in common in life is much greater than what disagreements we have.

I know some here like to divide and conquer, but my life seems to include many people that those here would just as soon were dead or at least gone. Muslims, liberals, Mormons, Hispanics — someone or another here seems to wish they didn’t exist.

The shame is that we are among the most vocal calling for “America” to join together to fight our “common enemy”. And yet we are the quickest to criticize and ridicule and scorn anybody who doesn’t think or look like us.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Do you regularly deal over a period of years with people who are not your friends?

And if so, how do you have enough of a conversation with them to help inform yourself?

[redgirlinabluestate]

Past actions......are a clear indication of what a politician will do.

I sure hope so.

In the four balanced budgets he signed into law, Governor Romney used the line-item veto or program reduction power to cut spending by nearly $1 Billion. Over the course of four budgets, Governor Romney made over 300 line-item reductions, 350 line-item eliminations and struck language 150 times.

4 years ago --- before the illegals marched in our streets --- Romney opposed a bill that would have allowed illegal aliens to get driver’s licenses. "Those who are here illegally should not receive tacit support from our government that gives an indication of legitimacy," the governor said. (Scott S. Greenberger, "Romney Stand Dims Chances Of License For Undocumented," The Boston Globe, 10/28/03)

Romney vetoed a bill in 2004 that would have permitted illegal aliens to pay the same in-state tuition rate paid by citizens at public colleges and universities in Massachusetts.

Romney vetoed the bill providing state funding for human embryonic stem cell research

Romney vetoed a bill that provided for the "morning after pill" without a prescription because it is an abortifacient and would have been available to minors without parental notification and consent

He vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation

Governor Romney strongly supported a successful ballot initiative that replaced the state's bilingual program with English immersion. (Romney Vows to Protect English Immersion Law, May 1, 2003)

Governor Romney demonstrated his commitment to school-choice by vetoing a bill that would have canceled funding for Massachusetts' charter-school program. (Romney to Veto Charter School Moratorium, June 23, 2004)

He supported parental notification laws and opposed efforts to weaken parental involvement

He fought to promote abstinence education in public school classrooms with a program offered by faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students.

Gov. Romney was instrumental in passing a bill abolishing a retroactive capital gains tax in the state that would have forced nearly 50,000 taxpayers to pay an additional $200 million in state taxes and fees

[greyfoxx39]

And if so, how do you have enough of a conversation with them to help inform yourself?

Informing myself takes a lot of different routes, and I believe in "trust but verify", especially on an anonymous internet forum. I could ask you the same question, as you have posted some pretty pedantic writings as some posters have noted.

[greyfoxx39]

we are the quickest to criticize and ridicule and scorn anybody who doesn’t think or look like us.

There you go again.