Posted on 01/02/2008 9:30:33 AM PST by Brian Sears
More on That Anti-Romney Iowa TV ad December 23, 2007 11:39 AM
As we reported on the blog yesterday, a group calling itself American Right to Life Action, is running TV ads against Mitt Romney here in Iowa on the Fox News Channel.
In Tuftonboro, N.H., Romney said about the ad, from ABC News' Matt Stuart, "I don't know who that is. I'd be interested to know who is really behind that group. I'm very proud that the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, which is the premier right-to-life group in Massachusetts, awarded me their leadership award. My record in being pro-life is very clear as the governor of Massachusetts and my guess is that there is some group that is pulling for another candidate and is trying to find some way to go after me and that is just the nature of politics."
Just got off the phone with Steve Curtis -- former chair of the Colorado Republican party -- who's the president of American Right to Life Action. He says the organization is not supporting any candidate, though his personal preference would be for Alan Keyes. He doesn't particularly like Mike Huckabee, either, he says. Or, obviously, Rudy Giuliani. He has no views of Fred Thompson other than he enjoyed his work on "Law & Order."
The group was formed in November during a summit in Denver with about 30 different anti-abortion leaders who are dissatisfied with the National Right to Life Committee. "Most of what they do isn't pro-life," Curtis says. He believes NRLC's push to pursue restrictions on abortion rights -- waiting periods, for example -- is a flawed policy.
"They're too political and not serious enough about the issue of abortion," Curtis says. "They support child-killing regulation bills." Curtis says "so long as the legislation ends with 'then you can kill a baby'" he thinks such restrictions are pro-abortion.
What does his group have against Mitt Romney? The former Massachusetts governor says he's changed his mind and now opposes abortion rights just like President Ronald Reagan and former Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill -- what's wrong with that explanation?
"The problem is he keeps changing back," Curtis says. "He flips and flops. What he says on the issue depends on where he's at and who he's talking to. We just flat-out don't believe the guy."
Curtis says the anti-Romney ad ran 192 times here on Fox News Channel in Iowa, at a cost of $12,000. They may triple that ad buy.
I encourage the good work re: Romney.
He’s such a fake.
Unless the candidates are willing to push for a Constitutional amendment to protect all life, this game of stacking the courts with activists will continue.
About all a President can do is push for ending Federal funding of abortion.
I hope this ad has some impact in Iowa. I would like to see Romney defeated there and in NH.
Did Mitt say “I now oppose abortion rights”? Or did he say “I now support the right to life of infants” or some other phrase FOR someone’s rights?
A woman’s body ends at the umbilical cord.
If women have an absolute right to control “their bodies”, what is the legal right for a siamese twin to commit suicide? They are two individuals living a conjoined life. So is a woman with a baby or two or six... They are each unique individuals. Their actions affect the others.
I totally agree with you .
Romney is going down in Iowa. He knows it, that is why he is down playing Iowa now. It just makes me sick that this means the Huckster will win the top spot. At least Thompson and McCain are fighting for third.
These guys are absolutists who don’t have a clue how to operate in politics ...
“They’re too political and not serious enough about the issue of abortion,” Curtis says. “They support child-killing regulation bills.” Curtis says “so long as the legislation ends with ‘then you can kill a baby’” he thinks such restrictions are pro-abortion. “
... in other words, these are extremists who hate the idea of making the abortion situation partly better since that is compromising. Never mind that parental consent laws in many states have been proven to reduce abortion rates, it’s too ‘dirty’ for them to actually *succeed* in politics, so they reject the art of compromise. To form a *political action committee* and not have a clue about how politics works tells you one thing: They are idiots.
Not surprising they’d go after the prolife convert and leave the prochoicer (Rudy) alone.
I’m not sure about that. Romney may be dropping again, maybe, but I think the Huckster must be dropping faster. He has really been making a fool of himself.
I mistrust Romney on the RTL issues, but I’m not sure what this group represents. They sound like a bunch of ideological purists, who don’t understand that the war against abortion has to be won one battle at a time, so I don’t think I would trust too much in what they say.
Huckster has been exposed as an awful candidate on so many levels, I cannot believe the Hucka-bubble will last, even through caucus night ....
Novak sez ...
“The most likely outcome appears to be:
1st Place: Mitt Romney
2nd Place: Mike Huckabee
3rd Place: Fred Thompson
4th Place: John McCain
“
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24241
Don’t write anyone off until the election happens. That’s the poll that counts!
Not true. For starters, he can speak forthrightly & unconfusingly about life in the womb. (Even on this basic milk-drinking exercise he has soundly flunked):
2007 Mitt confusing quotes...followed by comparison of 2007 stance of embryonic stem cell research vs. 2004 "conversion" & 2002 rah-rah pro stem cell research:
THE FLoP SIDE OF MITT
Has Mitt really converted, pro-life wise? Let's first just examine, in two summary statements, a comparison of what he has said in 2007.
Mitt on the 2007 campaign trail:
(Summary Statements: Example A)
Jan 28, 2007 in South Carolina: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Source cited in ensuing "FLiP & FLoP post). A little over 6 months later: Aug. 12, 2007 in Fox interview: "I never called myself pro-choice...I wasn't pro-choice..."
(Summary Statements: Example B)
June 15, 2007 (National Review article he wrote): "Some advocates told me that only the creation of human embryos for purposes of experimentation, otherwise known as cloning, could help them better understand and perhaps someday treat a series of dreaded diseases. But they ignored the importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life.” Almost 6 months later: December 5, 2007 Romney is interviewed by CBS’ Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law."
A vocal pro-life nurse named Jill Stanek, up until this last quote from Romney, "was trying hard to give this pro-life convert the benefit of the doubt." Stanek's assessment of Romney's conclusion? "No. A parent cannot authorize killing a child. A parent cannot donate his/her living child for scientific experimentation. Romney understood this when discussing abortion earlier in the interview. He just need to apply that logic to human embryo experimentation...I don't get Romney's disconnect, but he has disconnected. And he has disqualified himself...Turns out he's not completely converted." Source: http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_just.html
As Deal W. Hudson has said in his blog, Romney has a "lingering problem" in being only opposed to creating clones for stem cell research--not opposed to using "discarded" or "donated" frozen embryos: "...frozen embryos have been the primary source of embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is actually carried out?...My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more, if Romney's conversion was about the 'cheapened value of human life,' how can he abide the thought of a parent donating 'one of those embryos' to be destroyed?" Source: http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/12/the-problem-wit.html
So, just on embryonic research, we go from a...
...Mid-2002 Romney singing the praises of embryonic research: June 13, 2002, where he: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: weekly standard http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/013/222htyos.asp?pg=1
...To a...
...Late-2004 Romney undergoing his pro-life "conversion" due to this very issue: Nov. 9, 2004: Romney meet with Dr. Douglas Melton from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619536-2,00.html
...To a...
...Late-2007 Romney who doesn't mind frozen embryonic life being "cheapened" or doesn't mind if they are excluded from his so-called "importance of protecting human equality, dignity, and life"...well that is, with this caveat: As long as Mom & Pop say it's OK for them to be sacrificed in such an experimental research manner!
For those of you who think he's "changed," then just look at the 2007 quotes that follows:
THE FLiP & FLoP SIDE OF MITT
THE PRO-'LIFE'& PRO-ABORTION REVELATION OF MITT ROMNEY
"Verse 1": He said he was “pro-choice” in 1994 & had been since 1970: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)
"Verse 2": And it came to pass that he said he “didn’t wish to be labeled pro-choice” in a July 12, 2001 letter to a Salt Lake City newspaper.
"Verse 3": And it came to pass that he campaigned hard on being “pro-choice” in 2002:
“I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard… (Nov. 2, 2002)
"Verse 4": And it came to pass that he said he had a pro-life “conversion” after a Nov. 8, 2004 meeting. By May 27, 2005, he’s back to:
"I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice." (press conference comment) (So that’s “pro-life?”)
"Verse 5": And it came to pass that he said that he said later in 2005 in a Boston Globe op-ed that’s he’s “pro-life” and the 2 actions he took that year are pro-life—one action taken in February before he told us in May that he was “absolutely committed…regards to laws relating to abortion and choice”—and one after.
"Verse 6": And it came to pass that he said that this “pro-life” governor in April of 2006 signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access for poor women--$50 abortions on sale today via MittCare. He doesn’t veto placing a Planned Parenthood rep on the board oversight of MittCare.
"Verse 7": And it came to pass that he said within two weeks of campaigning in South Carolina in late Jan & early Feb, he makes the following 2 statements—both of which can’t be simultaneously true: Jan. 28, 2007:
“Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) (OK how could his even later claim that "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true?) Feb. 8, 2007: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life.” (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
"Verse 8": And it came to pass that he was asked to size up his changes through the years as an August 2007 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox:
"I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
OK, just even from his own lips, how can he say he...
...“sustains” Roe v. Wade in 1994 (“sustains” is the strongest word possible for a Mormon—see very last lengthy paragraph below—as LDS are asked to sustain ALL their leaders from the LDS “prophet” on down);
...says he is ”devoted and…dedicated” to “honoring” his ”word” to “sustain and support” Roe vs. Wade in 2002;
...continue to remain ”committed to my promise” in May of ’05;
...expand abortion services in RomneyCare in ’06 & make Planned Parenthood part of the healthcare “concrete”@ that time…???...
...While simultaneously...
...eschewing the “pro-choice” label in 2001;
...claim that “every action I’ve taken as the governor relates to the sanctity of human life” and looking backward from February, 2007, “I was always for life.” ???
Indeed, how can you be? It’s simple. You just don’t “call yourself pro-choice?” And why is that? Because you just don’t “feel pro-choice?” (And we all know for burning-bosom Mormons who determine the truth they base their entire lives upon FEELING is everything!)
Note this from a Mormon taking issue with Mitt’s past commitment to abortion in a detailed explanation as to why the word "sustain" is so important to Mormons:
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down.... Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: I>“To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law... Source: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/12/mormons-against-romney-analyze-romneys.html
Mormons are not opposed to military service. With a Romney as CinC of our armed forces fighting in the ME, he got a deferment from service in *Nam because his education came first(congressman for father didn*t hurt, either); and has five young strapping sons none of whom has had military service. Picture that. I guess it beats draft-dodger Bubba, but IMO not by much....I hope he wins in Iowa, because he will then become a deer in the headlights for all to see.
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.