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."

[Petronski]

He seems very sincere...

Sucker.

[restornu]

What are you going to say EV should Mitt becomes President, and ends abortion, protects Marriage of a man and Women, and restores Morality?

[EternalVigilance]

He also helped draft the current HLA, which is part of the GOP Platform, as counsel for the National Right to Life.

Romney says the states have the right to decide the abortion quesiton. That position is the polar opposite of the Reagan GOP platform.

[Spiff]

Romney says the states have the right to decide the abortion quesiton. That position is the polar opposite of the Reagan GOP platform.

There you go again...

Romney supports overturning Roe v. Wade as well as the eventual passage of the Human Life Amendment.

[CharlesWayneCT]

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.

And a guy who said he’d do more for gay rights than Kennedy, whatever the meaning of his statement, was going to be criticized as phony when he said he wasn’t for special protections for gays and was against gay marriage.

I don’t think those criticisms ARE true, so I disagree with the Globe’s editorializing. But I certainly understand that reason for those criticisms, and had to do a lot of contemplation before deciding that I wouldn’t believe it.

It’s partly why I had high hopes for Thompson, and still hold out hope.

But Romney has an excellent organization, he’s a real leader, and an effective speaker, who has an appeal to people who disagree with his positions.

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

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.

[CharlesWayneCT]

You haven’t answered yet why you think a good conservative organization would sell their soul for a $25,000 donation in a budget of over 20 million dollars.

It scares me that people have such a low opinion of other conservatives that they think they are all so easily corruptable.

[kevkrom]

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.

I agree. So why are you supporting Romney and attacking Thompson?

[kevkrom]

What are you going to say EV should Mitt becomes President, and ends abortion, protects Marriage of a man and Women, and restores Morality?

"What a strange dream I just had!"

[kevkrom]

You haven’t answered yet why you think a good conservative organization would sell their soul for a $25,000 donation in a budget of over 20 million dollars. It scares me that people have such a low opinion of other conservatives that they think they are all so easily corruptable.

History. See post #44 -- lots of 5-figure donations, the first ones he made ever, right before securing their endorsements.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'm not going to assume it's a pheasant.

[EternalVigilance]

What are you going to say EV should Mitt becomes President, and ends abortion, protects Marriage of a man and Women, and restores Morality?

The same thing you'll say if a diamond the size of a pickup truck breaks loose from Neptune, flies off into space, slingshots around the sun, bounces off Mars, then the moon, and slams into your backyard, uncovering a three trillion dollar vein of pure gold. "How likely was that?"

[CharlesWayneCT]

No, I don’t think people will follow lock-step. I think to some degree endorsements are not as useful as they once were, and in fact seem to be getting rather dangerous.

I’m certain that any cause Pat Robertson is pushing will be hurt by his endorsement. People are already trashing the Heritage foundation for their work on Romney’s health plan, and now they are claiming Paul and his foundation have been bribed to betray their principles.

My point is that we can evaluate the candidates from a distance, but we would all LOVE a chance to sit down one-on-one with the candidates and really ask the tough questions, and try to determine how truthful they seem to be.

We get some of that from talk show hosts who have them on their programs, but usually those are short, guarded affairs. And we won’t get to sit with the candidates. So the next best thing is for people we TRUST to sit with them, and give us their impression.

There are people on this board (or who used to be here) that, if they express an opinion different from mine, make me take notice and really do more research on an issue.

But I don’t see a lot of that here. No matter how “well-known”, and how “respected” people are, most Freepers are likely to simply dump on ANYBODY who says something that disagrees with their already-held position.

I don’t work that way. I have principles, and judgments based on those principles. But I know I’m fallable, and when I see smart people disagreeing with my conclusions, I have to re-evaluate. It’s the true definition of an open mind, NOT someone who is subject to whatever the latest fad is, but someone who is always open to the possibility that they are wrong.

Many FReepers find that such a foreign concept that they can’t even believe there are people like that. When I discuss an issue with them, they assume I must be trying to trick them, and refuse to offer a logical defense of their position, when in fact I’m looking to re-evaluate and really just want them to explain their assumptions, facts, and logic so I can decide if it makes more sense.

If we all were open to debate and discussion, we could really advance the cause.

[EternalVigilance]

There you go again...

Romney supports overturning Roe v. Wade as well as the eventual passage of the Human Life Amendment.

No. There YOU go again.

It's obvious that supporting the inveterate liar Romney is rubbing off on you. Why? Because you just told a blatant lie. In the context of this conversation, you just left out key information.

Mitt Romney: "Let states decide on abortion."

[Spiff]

No. There YOU go again. It's obvious that supporting the inveterate liar Romney is rubbing off on you. Why? Because you just told a blatant lie. In the context of this conversation, you just left out key information. Mitt Romney: "Let states decide on abortion."

There YOU go again. You're leaving out key information. Such as Romney statements that he supports the Human Life Amendment as well as endorsing legislation to make clear that 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children. Cherry picking quotes and such won't cut it.

[restornu]

I really think this is beyond politics it is personal with EV, he just hates Romney as a being!

[EternalVigilance]

Link it.

But, even if you can, the two things are mutually exclusive. You cannot support Fourteenth Amendment protection for the unborn and then say the states should decide. Unless you’re a deceiver, of course.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Your argument is specious. “post #44” shows several inconsequential contributions to several organizations. If you want to argue they show Romney trying to gain “conservative cred”, go ahead.

But explain what the organizations he is GIVING to would sell out for such small amounts? You’ve offered NO proof that any of them are so unprincipled, you just claim it.

You still haven’t answered why you think the Heritage Foundation would sell their souls for a $25,000 donation in a budget of $20 million.

Much less explained how that would make sense, given that if they really DID adopt liberal positions in exchange for $25,000 their source of the other 19.975 million dollars in their budget would dry up.

Your conspiracy theory lacks motive and common sense, from the viewpoint of the organizations.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Yeah, but that would be pretty cool.

[redgirlinabluestate]

And Rudy and Hillary don't really want Roe v. Wade overturned at all. So you are back at square one. Like I said, good luck with that.

I'd rather have someone in the WH who is willing to use the presidential bully pulpit to advance the cause and move the country in the right direction.

Even James Bopp, the guy who wrote the platform amendment, realizes it is a two-step process:

Romney advisor Jim Bopp, a leading pro-life lawyer who serves as the top attorney for National Right to Life and other pro-life groups, tells LifeNews.com.... It would allow for the protection of as many unborn children as possible in the short term while a human life amendment is pursued.....

That squares with the pro-life movement's long-stated goals of protecting as many unborn children as possible as soon as possible -- first through getting judges on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and also through a federal amendment for long-term legal protection.

So it does come down to two things: (1) the viability of the candidate, which only Mitt Romney has demonstrated among the socially conservative candidates, and (2) whether social conservatives will have the courage to rally around the only viable social conservative alternative to Rudy Giuliani. A divided field means that Giuliani is likely to win the nomination. This is our choice to make, and we don't have long to make it. ~~ James Bopp

Choices: Those supporting an eventual amendment: McCain and Romney vs. Those not in favor: Rudy and Fred and all the dems

[Constantine XIII]

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

[greyfoxx39]

How very, VERY modest of you, LOL. I’m sure we can all learn SO much from your excellent example of principled, self-deprecating instructional posts on FReeper mores...is it any wonder that you are a Romney supporter? Do you hold the holy “keys” by any chance?