Posted on 11/09/2007 6:02:11 AM PST by Reaganesque
Yes, respected figures often change their mind, especially after a candidate stuffs a bunch of cash in their pocket.
I too believe that "adamantly" was not a well chosen word. Recall, however, that the word was not used in a prepared speech, press release, advertisement, etc. It was simply an off-the-cuff remark made in an interview on a Sunday news program. His remarks have been mischaracterized to the point of near hysteria.
The problem is timing. He appears to change his opinions when it's convenient to do so. I'd prefer somebody who changed his opinions before that point.
In Romney's case, it would have been more impressive if he did it before running for office in MA, rather than just before trying to sell himself to a more conservative electorate than he faced in MA.
It's like a trial witness who gets a get-out-of-jail card for telling their story a certain way. You have reason to doubt their credibility.
I'm sure we'll find out eventually, just as these gems were uncovered back in march:
WASHINGTON -- In the months before announcing his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts contributed tens of thousands of dollars of his personal fortune to several conservative groups in a position to influence his image on the right.It is a shame that the going rate for selling out to a liberal RINO appears to be as low as $10,000 to $35,000.Last December, a foundation controlled by Romney made contributions of $10,000 to $15,000 to each of three Massachusetts organizations associated with major national conservative groups: the anti-abortion Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Massachusetts Citizens for Limited Taxation and the Christian conservative Massachusetts Family Institute.
Romney and a group of his supporters also contributed a total of about $10,000 to a nonprofit group affiliated with National Review. Over the past two years, he contributed $35,000 to the Federalist Society, an influential network of conservative lawyers. And in December 2005, he contributed $25,000 to the Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative research organization.
The recipients of Romney's donations said the money had no influence on them. But some of the groups, notably Citizens for Life and the Family Institute, have turned supportive of Romney after criticizing him in the past.
Coming on the eve of his presidential campaign, Romney's contributions could create the appearance of a conflict of interest for groups often asked to evaluate him. All the groups said he had never contributed before, and his foundation's public tax filings show no previous gifts to similar groups.
It's arguable, then, that neither is lobbying for a pro-abortion group. In any event, you can see from the letter linked above, that the pro-life and pro-family leaders in Massachusetts welcomed Romney's conversion to their side and his assistance with their causes.
What pro-active things has your candidate done in the recent past to further the cause? Where's your candidate's letter of support from pro-life and pro-family leaders with whom he's worked to strengthen families and protect life?
Yes, I know the phrase "that view is due at least in part to the fact that by any reasonable standard it's true" was 100% editorial. Are you telling me, tho, that "phony" and "political opportunist" was not in the PowerPoint presentation uncovered by the Globe? (And if it wasn't, why the quotations?).
I'll take 3 hours of contacting low-level Administration officials some 16 or so years ago to have them clarify their position versus supporting the substance of Roe v. Wade and pledging support for taxpayer-funded abortions when he last ran for office. (And Mitt delivered on the latter with RomneyCare.)
pro-life and pro-family leaders in Massachusetts welcomed Romney's conversion to their side and his assistance with their causes
Yes, #44 above shows quite clearly that they appreciated Romney's (financial) "assistance" for their causes, once he decided to run for President.
“Ronaldus Maximus started out as a Democrat, and became a Conservative and Republican over time by observing and thinking about the world around him. People change. I know this for a fact, because I changed, too. If you can’t accept the possibility of anyone else sincerely adopting your point of view without being born that way, what is the function of reasoned discourse? How will you gather anyone to your cause if you won’t let them in the door?”
A conservative democrat formally changing parties back in a different time and a different world in 1962, has nothing to do with a campaign strategy leading a republican to switch to conservative in 2005 for the election cycle.
Romney’s father was a three term Rep. governor, Romney was present and proudly watched his father storm out of the 1964 convention in protest against the Goldwater conservatives.
Romney proudly watched his father go down as the liberal, anti war republican candidate for president.
Romney proudly watched as his mother ran as a pro abortion candidate for the senate in 1970.
During the sixties Romney stayed liberal, Roe vs Wade kept him pro choice, Carter? no effect, Clinton years? no effect, 2000 election? no effect, 9/11? no effect, watch him campaigning in 2002, then he made the most sweeping list of reversals in beliefs that I have ever seen a politician make, all around 2005.
During the Reagan years Romney even registered as independent and did not support Reagan. In other words he stayed liberal during the Reagan revolution and the following Gingrich revolution.
We can show you many videos of his campaigning in 1994 and 2002, including running away from the Reagan revolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
To try to drag Ronald Reagan into Romney’s sorry ass political history is obscene.
Throwing in a word like "adamantly" is not a slip of the tongue -- it was either deliberate or simply reflects what Romney actually thinks. In the former case, it proves he's a scumbag; in the latter, catching him in the rare unscripted moment merely strongly suggests that he's a scumbag.
Don't forget Mitt became a two-time LDS bishop and one-time missionary prez during the mid-1980s. Did serving in a "pastoral" type role within a primarily pro-life body help? (Nope. No effect). As 1994, he was as rabidly pro-abortion as ever.
Mitt Romney received the endorsement of an anti-abortion group, Massachusetts Citizens For Life, in his Republican primary race for the 1994 Senate election. (Ed Hayward, "Anti-abortion group endorses Romney bid," Boston Herald, 9/08/1994)
Pro-life activist, James Bopp, Jr., wrote:
"Romney’s conversion was less abrupt than is often portrayed. In his 1994 Senate run, Romney was endorsed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life and kept their endorsement, even though he declared himself to be pro-choice, because he supported parental-consent laws, opposed taxpayer-funded abortion and mandatory abortion coverage under a national health insurance plan, and was against the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have codified Roe v. Wade by federal statute.
As Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe put it: "Romney’s very public migration rightward over the last few years is . . . intended not to hide his real views but to liberate them.
Doncha know? He was "personally opposed", just like every other pro-abortion politician.
It is when you're in a bluer-than-blue state with an 85% Democrat legislature. National Right to Life founder Dr. John Willke endorsed Romney due to his pro-life record. National Right to Life lead attorney James Bopp not only endorsed Romney, but decided to join the campaign. Massachusetts Citizens for Life also endorsed Mitt Romney because of his pro-life record.
"Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life. Every decision he made as Governor was on the side of life. I know he will be the strong pro-life President we need in the White House." - Dr. John Willke
1) Even the latest version of Mitt approves of the destruction of human embryos for the purpose of scientific experimentation, if someone arbitrarily deems them "unwanted." How can any "conversion" be real, in the light of this fact?
2) The latest version of Mitt has adopted the phony federalism that puts states' rights above unalienable rights. Since this position is anathema to the founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence, is contrary to the primary purpose of our Constitution as spelled out in the Preamble, and is a violation of the personhood of the unborn and the protection of their lives as spelled out in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, how can you dream that this man is in any way pro-life, or moored in his heart and mind to the American creed?
3) Mitt and his staff have consistently run away from responsibility for the fact that abortions are being performed TODAY using taxpayer funds under the "CommonwealthCare" plan that HE signed into law. How does this square with a true spirit of repentance, Paul?
4) Even if you are foolish enough to take Mitt Romney's word about his so-called "conversion," in spite of the overwhelming evidence that it is as phony as a three-dollar bill, would your church make a life-long reviler and proponent of the most vile anti-Christian attitudes your pastor overnight? Would that not be begging destruction for your church AND the "repentant sinner"? Even Saul of Tarsus had to prove himself...
To make Mitt Romney the de facto leader of the pro-life movement, the conservative movement, the Republican Party, the United States, and the free world, would be the height of foolishness. Paul Weyrich, you should be ashamed of yourself.
So he became MORE liberal on that when he ran in 2002, promoting taxpayer funded abortions and then delivering on them with RomneyCare? Wow. You're helping me out here, thanks!
No, they endorsed him after he paid them 5 figures.
The Big Lie.
However, you made a specific accusation that Weyrich's endorsement was bought by Mitt Romney with a donation to Weyriche's foundation. You then stated that the foundation you were referring to was the Free Congress Foundation. What I fail to see in this article you have copy/pasted here is any mention of the FCF. You have failed to back up your slander of Paul Weyrich and Mitt Romney with relevant facts. But don't let that slow you down. That's par for the course around here.
Or 3.0?
Or 4.1...
We need to look at the shipping invoice or call tech support...
Maybe get the latest updates, perhaps his latest service pack has made him a libertarian...
It’s malware.
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.