Posted on 02/08/2008 3:05:07 PM PST by AFA-Michigan
It baffles the mind.
Perfectly stated. Post of the month.
FRegards,
LH
I second LH's comment. Post of the month!
Certainly that was a "positive" change compared to his June 2002, pro-embryonic speech. But you failed to mention he shifted gears on this a third time.
Dec. 5, 2007, Romney interview with Katie Couric: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for uadoption for people who would like to adopt embryos.
Yeah, Romney...I really honestly loved this statement (hardly any candidates EVER mention embryo adoption).
But then I kept reading his very next sentence to Couric: 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."
So, here he concedes embryos and their "parent[s]." Here he conceded frozen surplus embryos are "adopt[able]." But if a "parent" wants to "donate" an otherwise adoptable embryo to "research" (for "dissection" purposes), "that's acceptable."
That's what you call "pro-choice" to the max!
This shows you how deluded the Mittiacs and Mittbots were.
You like change? He changed. And he changed. And he changed again...And he...
Let's have a "mock" "interview" of Mitt, shall we? --using his own actual words as the substantive part of his "responses" (his actual words are underlined):
Q Mr. Romney, tell us about how you've switched your attitude on abortion.
A "Yes. While I never said I was pro-choice... my position was effectively pro-choice." [Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007]
Q So since you're not "effectively pro-choice" anymore, you've changed. But what do you mean, "I never said I was pro-choice?" According to the records, didn't you say in 1994 that Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's?" [Source: Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05] Didn't you follow that up 11 years later on May 27, 2005 after your pro-life "conversion" by saying "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice?" Isn't "free to choose" and "promise to maintain...choice" the same thing as "pro-choice?" (Or are you just parsing words?) Didn't you also make multiple 'pro-choice' promises in 2002?"
A "I've made it quite clear since at least the Summer of 2001 that I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." [Source: Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01]
Q "If you didn't want to be labeled as 'pro-choice' as of 2001, then why 'promise to maintain...choice' multiple times in both 2002 & 2005? (I guess I'm a bit befuddled here)"
A "Listen, 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..." [Source: Mitt Romney, interview with Fox Chris Wallace, Aug. 12, 2007]
Q "...But excuse me, sir, just because you in your internal conversations haven't labeled yourself 'pro-choice' doesn't mean that you haven't spent a dozen-year period between 1994 and 2005 spouting 'pro-choice' expressions. Isn't that so?
A "Listen, I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." [Source: Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007]
Q "But we started out this interview where you were totally coming clean on your past years and you said your 'position was effectively pro-choice.' What was your record as governor of Massachusetts, then?"
A "I've been quite forthright on my positions ever since I took the campaign trail in South Carolina in January of 2007. I'll repeat what I said then: 'Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice.'" [Source: Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07]
Q "So we have established, then, that you were indeed 'pro-choice' over the last multiple years..."
A "...But you didn't let me finish. Eleven days after I made that statement, I also told South Carolina's citizens that 'I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life.'" [Source: Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007]
Q "OK, I'm getting rather confused again. How can you be 'pro-choice'...over the last multiple years and yet 'always [be] for life?'"
A "Well, that's because of my track record as governor. You see '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.'"
Q "But why did you then tell me that 'Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice?'"
A "Well, some people interpret it that way because of $50 Commonwealth Care abortions and a Planned Parenthood League representative who in now permanently attached to that process."
Q "But you've told me that 'every action' you took 'as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life' you 'stood on the side of life?'"
A "Uh, excuse me, but my press secretary just handed me a copy of my Katie Couric interview on embryonic stem cell research, and I want to review it...feel free to watch":
COURIC INTERVIEW: "...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos..."
Q "Wow, Mitt, that's great. I don't think I've ever heard a POTUS candidate ever talk about adopting frozen surplus embryos before. That's great!"
A "Shh. (You'll miss my next sentence)"
COURIC INTERVIEW: "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." [Dec. 5, 2007 interview with CBS' Katie Couric]
Q "So 'pro-choice' parents--and you admit they are 'parents' of adoptable embryos--if they 'decide' to 'donate' a young one for purposes of dissection...that's 'acceptable?' [More head shaking] And this was the very issue that 'converted' you to the "I was always for life" 'new' position, eh?"
OK, that's 3 votes. (1 Person I assume). You sound like a Democrat. :)
Lot’s of nice typing. That just goes to show ya!!
Republicans have such great admiration for Ronald Reagan that we tend to forget how far a conversion he had to make to become the conservative icon we respect today. Certainly, Mitt Romney is no RR, but he’s still superior to those who remain in the presidential sweepstakes. We haven’t heard the last of him in presidential politics.
NMH: “Make those liberal RINO’s, er ‘Republicans’ proud.”
Liberal RINOs? You mean like Mitt Romney?
From Human Events, the conservative newsweekly that Ronald Reagan called his favorite magazine:
HUMAN EVENTS
December 27, 2005
Top Ten RINOs: (Republicans in Name Only)
As ranked by the editors of Human Events
8. Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) Has said, “I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country.” Supports civil unions and stringent gun laws. After visiting Houston, he criticized the city’s aesthetics, saying, “This is what happens when you don’t have zoning.”
Full RINOs list:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129&keywords=RINOs
NMH: “...continue on LYING about Mitt.”
You’ve yet to produce any evidence that anything I’ve posted is false, N.
Are you able to produce any evidence of any pro-life group that endorsed Romney’s candidacy for president?
I don’t mean an award from Mass Citizens for Life, who repeatedly criticized Romney until they received a $15,000 contribution from him...and magically saw the light.
For example, here’s audio of a Mass Citizens for Life spokeswoman criticizing Romney for forcing Catholic hospitals to issue the morning after pill:
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/wburnews/2005/me_1209_2.rm
As for Mitt admitting his mistake...what mistake? He’s not even clear on whether he was or wasn’t pro-choice before his alleged conversion. Of course, whether he was or wasn’t would determine whether there ever was a conversion...or a mistake.
Confused? Well, here’s what Mitt says:
“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.” (Mitt Romney, Fox News Sunday, August 12, 2007)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293017,00.html
“I think I’ve made it very clear. I WAS PRO-CHOICE, or effectively pro-choice, when I ran in 1994 (and 2002).” (Mitt Romney, Associated Press, December 18, 2007)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hjo2zpLNAjtxCVkBA1Xn9FYQ5tpQD8TK3G500
Now, which of these is a “lie,” NMH?
You keep yelling “lie,” and you keep failing to prove your false accusation.
WOSG: “’Sad’ is you peddling a leftist website’s screed as some kind of wisdom when it’s attack-journalism pap.”
I want to be sure I understand your position, W.
If, later this year, the Democrats attack McCain for some of the exact same things you do, will your criticism of McCain then be immediately rendered false?
Hardly. The Dems are wrong, but they’re not (always) stupid. They would have attacked Romney as a flip-flopper because Romney IS a flip-flopper, and the fact that the Dems would be smart enough to attack him for it doesn’t make it not ture.
WOSG: “Want to blame someone for McCain being the nominee? Hey, you made this bed.”
You might try peddling that pablum with somebody stupid enough to buy it. Your support for Romney prevented his supporters from coalescing around Huckabee or Thompson or some other candidate who might have stopped McCain. Thus, you made the bed. A vote for Romney was obviously a vote for McCain...seeing as how Romney wasn’t viable enough to stay in the race.
I was and I am glad Mitt is a wise man and learn quickly how the game is played!
Lets see if Huckabee will continue to get endless free air time so he can cause a brokers convention I bet McCain does not like this Chihuahua nipping at his heels.
“The Dems are wrong”
That’s right, this analysis is wrong. Romney would have made a stronger candidate than McCain for various reasons. one of them being that the litany of complaints against mcCain will arise again, another being that their complaints about Romney would be self-defeating as they are basically saying “hey, he’s not as rightwing as he is claiming to be” - uttely undoes the usual Democrats campaign playbook.
The liberals are saying these things against Romney because they want the story to be “running as a conservative makes you fail”. Thus, they can destroy conservatism. You are a fool to give it any consideration.
And dont give me your self-serving Thompson comments. I know that you were against Thompson back when I was not. I was always ready to rally around the unifying conservative candidate (and no, it was never Huckster and you know that), but you were not. I don’t forget your trashing of Thompson for the crime of being against HLA back in September or so. tactically correct, but strategically wrong. Or the hurtful comments Dobson made. In the end, it was Romney who was the only strong candidate we could rally around to stop mccain - and you still opposed him, distorting and exaggerating his sins along the way. Thus, litmus test conservatives like you delivered us a fractured conservative wing and a McCain nomination. your choice, your bed.
“You keep yelling “lie,” and you keep failing to prove your false accusation.
It really doesn’t matter how many pro life organizations support Mitt. The FACT that CPAC booed LIBERAL McPain in the arse. Or that McPain in the arse has no issue with gays in the military. Or McPain is one of the few Republcians that didn’t stand by Bush during the war in Iraq and now claims credit for the surge. Or that McPain in the arse as I type this now is shoving through a HUGE tax increase that kill buisiness and raise MY taxes in the name of the global warming god. It just doens’t matter to you.
TRUTH is YOUR WORST ENEMY.
No matter how many times YOU lie, it doesn’t make it TRUTH.
I won’t waste my time of the lying Huckabilly - he’s a backslidden Baptist. His reward is this:
Matt.16:26
[26] For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Mike lives for the moment and stand this verse on its head:
Rom.12:2
[2] And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
It’s more profitable for Mike to CONFORM to this fallen world.
Oh yea, he’s against homosexuality but in a heart beat he’ll TAKE THEIR MONEY TOO - yeah, a real pribipled “Christian” LOL!!!
James Vaughn of Log Cabin writes an interesting post on the Republican YouTube Debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLois8cnf0Q
We respect Gov. Huckabee and his clearly consistent policy opinion on marriage equality, even though we strongly disagree with that policy.
http://lcrchicago.wordpress.com/2007/12/04/70/
Yeah it’s no wonder the LOG CABING REPUBLICANS endorse MIKE Huckabee and cheer on McPain in the arse. YOU really have nerve suggested that Mitt has the gays - LOL! It’s McPain and the Baptist - Huckabee! Then again, your HATRED of Mitt BLINDS you - now you have TWO iditoic, lying godless LIBERALS to chose from.
YOU have TWO losers, McPain and the Huckelbilly.
We cast our vote for Mitt. He withdrew and now it comes down to PRINIPLCE. Just can’t hold our noess any longer and vote for people that are NOT conserative or trustworthy. YOU vote for the soundrels. We’ll be patinet and vote in 20012 when I suspect Mitt will run again.
Yes, bigots like you are out there fabricating LIES to justify YOUR bigotry. IT won’t work next time. Rational peopl will look pasthis Mormonism. Instead of prayign fo rthe guy - YOU trash him with LIES.
Sorry, WOSG, can’t help but laugh at this one.
You ridiculously say: “The liberals are saying these things against Romney because they want the story to be ‘running as a conservative makes you fail.’ Thus, they can destroy conservatism. You are a fool to give it any consideration.”
Yeah, right, especially after candidates running as conservatives have defeated them in all but two prez elections since 1980. Anybody of intelligence in either party knows that the attack line on Romney in the fall would not have been that he’s “conservative” but that he was the GOP version of flip-flopper John Kerry on steroids.
Further hilarity: “And dont give me your self-serving Thompson comments. I know that you were against Thompson back when I was not.”
Take a stroll down memory lane, in which I was first accused last July of criticizing Romney to advance Fred Thompson’s candidacy:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/blumenthal
In fact, a lot of social conservative activists, including myself, were open to a Thompson candidacy — that is, until he stupidly sent most of us packing within the first few weeks of his campaign by dissing both the Marriage Protection Amendment and the Human Life Amendment.
WOSG again: “I don’t forget your trashing of Thompson for the crime of being against HLA back in September or so.”
Good, and please help make sure nobody else forgets it either.
WOSG: “In the end, it was Romney who was the only strong candidate we could rally around to stop McCain - and you still opposed him...”
I still opposed Romney, as I have since mid-2005 regardless of which other candidate was being talked about, because he is not trustworthy on conservative issues. The guy’s a serial flip-flopper, and he either consciously or compulsively has a disturbing pattern of repeated statements that are demonstrably false. He either does that on purpose, or he can’t help himself.
“...distorting and exaggerating his sins along the way.”
False, of course. Haven’t said anything about Romney that’s not documented by the record.
WOSG: “Thus, litmus test conservatives like you delivered us a fractured conservative wing and a McCain nomination. your choice, your bed.”
My choice is Gov. Huckabee, and he’s still actually in the race. Which “litmus test” FReeper is it that’s refusing to support the only remaining alternative to McCain now? Not me. That would be...
...you, WOSG.
NMH continues to flail: “It really doesn’t matter how many pro life organizations support Mitt.”
Of course, it doesn’t, especially when you don’t have any. Now if Romney did have any, I’m sure it would matter very much, huh? But thanks at least for your uncharacteristically reality-based admission that you cannot cite any pro-life group that’s endorsed Romney’s campaign. Your admission proves that what I was posted on that subject is true and, obviously, not a “lie” as you falsely accused.
NMH: “Or that McPain in the arse has no issue with gays in the military.”
N, are you allowing someone to use your screen name to post stuff that makes you look ridiculous?
Are you seriously attacking McCain for not opposing gays in the military?
There’s only one candidate who ENDORSED gays in the military, and as already noted and documented in post 52 above, that’d be your boy Mitt:
“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
Photocopy of Romney’s full letter to the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/RomneyLogCabinLetter.pdf
NMH screams at the screen: “TRUTH is YOUR WORST ENEMY. No matter how many times YOU lie, it doesn’t make it TRUTH.”
You’ve yet to identify even one “lie,” N, much less “how many times” I’ve told the truth about Mitt’s record which sends you mind-melding into an apparently alternative universe where Mitt really was a conservative.
NMH: “Oh yea, (Huckabee’s) against homosexuality but in a heart beat he’ll TAKE THEIR MONEY TOO - yeah, a real pribipled ‘Christian’ LOL!!!”
That’s pretty rich coming from a guy shilling for Romney, who was twice endorsed by the homosexual activist group Log Cabin Republicans after promising them he’d support their political agenda.
N, you posted a link to Huckabee’s comments on Log Cabin. That was a good one. Let’s link it again, it was so good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLois8cnf0Q
Then N, you lose all semblance of having any contact with reality: “Yeah it’s no wonder the LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS endorse MIKE Huckabee...YOU really have nerve suggested that Mitt has the gays.”
N, before the nice men in the white jackets come in to take you to a place where you can get some rest, just another closing word or two about reality-based interaction with the world around you...
1. Mike Huckabee is not and never has been endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans.
2. Mitt Romney sought and was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans in each of his two previous runs for office, after promising to support their political agenda. His gubernatorial transition team included Patrick Guerrero, who later became national executive director the Log Cabin Republicans. Understandably, after he flip-flopped on some of their political agenda along with just about every other issue, they no trust him and no longer have any respect for him.
(That’s a pretty tough concept, folks, losing the respect of people who identify themselves by the fact that they engage in anal intercourse.)
Of course, few if any people knowledgeable about Mitt’s record on either side of the homosexual issue trust him. That’s what happens to serial flip-floppers. Nobody trusts them.
NMH: “We’ll be patient and vote in 2012 when I suspect Mitt will run again.”
Based on your obvious challenges with reality-based interaction, you may well be a patient by 2012. But I share your suspicion that Mitt will run again, and it’s never too early to start reminding people about his liberal pro-abort, pro-homosexual record (which is why Log Cabin endorsed him twice in the past).
And finally, no Romney sycophant post would be complete without the sycophant eventually resorting to accusing anyone who dares criticize Romney’s liberal record of being a religious bigot. NMH writes: “Yes, bigots like you are out there fabricating LIES to justify YOUR bigotry. IT won’t work next time. Rational peopl will look past his Mormonism.”
Not that you’re any expert on “rational” thought, N, but let’s once again observe the simple facts:
1. In your last post alone, you twice refer to Gov. Huckabee as a “back-slidden Baptist” and in another reference you question whether he is a “pribibled Christian” (by which I assume you meant “principled Christian”). Thus, you are the one demonstrating bigotry against Huckabee based on your assessment of his religious faith. I haven’t mentioned Romney’s, since that has nothing to do with his liberal record, aside from the fact that his record is at odds with the values of his own pro-life, pro-family church.
2. I’ve personally managed the campaigns of a couple dozen Mormons over the last 30 years, and consulted or managed the managers of another dozen. However, in each case, they actually were pro-life, pro-family conservatives (unlike Mitt’s record). Last spring, I sang at the funeral of the first candidate whose campaign I ever managed back in 1978, an LDS machine shop owner. In May, an LDS candidate whose campaign I managed in 1980 will be staying in my home when they visit MI to see their son-in-law graduate from Ann Arbor. In that 1980 campaign, my conservative Mormon candidate defeated a liberal incumbent who was a Nazarene minister. (Perhaps you’ll now accuse me of being anti-Nazarene, since by your standard, if you oppose any political candidate, that makes you a bigot toward that candidate’s religion, right? Meaning you would be an anti-Baptist bigot since you don’t support either Huckabee or Episcopalian-turned-Bapist John McCain. Or have I misunderstood your accusation?)
So could I support a Mormon candidate for political office? Yes, have not only voted for many, but have managed their campaigns. Can I support this Mormon candidate (Romney)? No. Because his past record on a wide range of issues and even some of his current positions post-flip-flop are dramatically at odds with the traditional family values widely associated with his own church. Romney’s credibility problem is not that he’s Mormon, but that his public policy record hasn’t been Mormon enough.
3. Finally, I can’t resist offering the following one-question pop quiz to all Romney sycophants who resort to accusing anyone who criticizes Romney’s less than pro-family record of being a religious bigot.
So here’s your chance to show us how smart you are, NMH. Answer the following question:
Which “anti-Mormon bigot” last year authored the following very public criticism not only of Romney but of another prominent Mormon personality who owns one of the nation’s largest hotel chains:
“Pornography taints everything it touches. Mitt Romney should have understood that. So should the Marriott Corporation and other hotel owners who offer hard-core movies in hotel rooms. Romney caught a bit of flack last week because he spent nearly 10 years on the Marriott board and yet never tried to reverse the company’s policy of providing pornography on demand, something (regional Mormon Church official) J.W. ‘Bill’ Marriott Jr., defended in a 2000 letter as being economically important. ...For a presidential candidate who has railed against pornography, this is not entirely insignificant. Even if the subject never came up at a board meeting, one can argue that at least part of the $25,000 plus stock he was paid annually for his board membership came from the money some hotel guests paid for access to the films.”
Come on, NMH. Don’t be bashful. Give it a try.
Show you’re capable of something more than putting your fingers in your ears, squeezing your eyes shut tight, and yelling “Lie! Lie! Lie!”
“Which “litmus test” FReeper is it that’s refusing to support the only remaining alternative to McCain now? Not me.”
There is no remaining alternative to McCain. That’s the point! He’s the 100% lock-tight sure-to-be nominee.
“My choice is Gov. Huckabee, and he’s still actually in the race.”
Your choice was the favorite choice of the liberals and the MSM. A perfect non-conservative stalking horse to split the conservative vote. Liberal MSM 1, conservatives 0.
It’s not like we werent warning you that this is EXACTLY what was going on as early as November, when the MSM was feeding the ‘huckaboom’. And now, after Huck helped McCain win, he is nothing by a losing candidate.
I will just disagree fundamentally on your (mis)characterization of Mitt Romney and leave it at that.
Just because you are more repetitive doesnt make you more right. While you pick nits on a dead horse, others have bigger fish to fry:
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
However, your pointing to liberal sources like Nation and Slate as ‘validation’ should clue you in just a *wee* bit that the upshot of this primary-election ClusterHuck has been *not* good for the conservative cause.
PS. WOSG again: “I don’t forget your trashing of Thompson for the crime of being against HLA back in September or so.”
“Good, and please help make sure nobody else forgets it either.”
Fine, so don’t saddle me with this hurting Thompson nonsense. By your own admission, Thompson and social conservative leaders hurt Thompson, by not coming together.
Give yourself a pat on the back ... for producing McCain as the nominee.
WOSG: “Give yourself a pat on the back.”
More than happy to give myself a pat on the back for:
(1) Helping stop the Massachusetts flip-flopper with an aggressively pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-gun control record from winning the GOP nomination and hijacking the conservative movement, unthinkable as it is that many professed “conservatives” were and are so dead set on surrendering both to him.
(2) Supporting the candidate most trustworthy now and in the past in the defense of prenatal life and traditional family values such as one-man, one-woman marriage.
I do the right thing (see 1 and 2 above) and leave the outcome to Bigger Hands than yours or mine. All I have control over is my own faithfulness to doing the right thing.
I see that tonight in Washington, a vote for Romney was a vote for McCain. Just as a vote for Thompson in S.C. has been proven to have been a vote for McCain.
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.