I'll trust this guys opinion on Romney over yours. He has never quoted Dick Morris or anti Palin Cartoon-ISTS. Here's his unedited read on Romney and Ronaldus Maximus.
Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing, it’s important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he often admitted, was anything but perfect.
One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
Get off of your LSD (or is it IV now?).
No one (except his RomneyBOTs, servants, and slaves)
believes Romney. He directed attacks on Gov. Palin
and Sen. McCain unto the very day of the 2008 election.
Once again, you —Rameumptom— prove to be a disgusting
stinking, worthless, venal liar.
You falsely claim, that I purported Romney cannot be
“trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby.”
Where was that, Rameumpton?
Like Romney, you have shown yourself to be lower than a snake (and I apologize to snakes).
It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism.They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s? [Rameumptom]
Before I address your Reagan contrast, why do you assume Romney converted? Of course, Freepers are intelligent enough to recognize that politicians do change. But we’re no fools. We know that some politicians change…and change...and change...and keep changing!!!
Romney was pro-abortion in…
…1994,
…2002-2004,
…May of 2005...
…but he "wasn't pro-choice" in a letter-to-the editor in a Utah newspaper in 2001…
… and made pro-life actions in 2005 SANDWICHED between a pro-abortion comment in 2005...
…but then was back to pro-abortion actions in 2006 with RomneyCare...
…before being supposedly "pro-life" in 2007...
…but then he told us he was "always for life" in early '07 and wasn't ever "pro-choice" according to a Summer ’07 statement of his.
Reagan Contrast
What you got with Reagan was not someone who, after writing a book, Abortion: The Conscience of a Nation in 1984, kept slipping back (like Romney did) into pro-abortion words & actions.
Question #1: I mean, did Reagan have a 13-year hand-holding affair with Planned Parenthood like Romney did? (attended Planned Parenthood promo events with his wife's $150 check in hand...enough to pay for 1/2 abortion--in 1994; answered Planned Parenthood's political questionnaire all to PP's liking in 2002 + did same for NARAL & Majority for Choice--even personally sought the one for MFC; then put a PP rep as a permanent oversight rep for RomneyCare board...the latter supposedly after he was "pro-life.")
Question #2: Did Reagan attempt to obfuscate his previous role like Romney did in 2007?
In contrast to Reagan, let’s look at the alleged “sincerity” you cite for Romney:
Please explain how both these 2007 statements could be true?
(a) "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."
Versus (b) “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) Note: And then, of course, 11 days after that, he said he was "effectively pro-choice...over the last multiple years" before settling into a campaign promo even in that same state: "I am firmly pro-life…I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007)
Gee, Rameumptom…can’t you take Romney’s February 2007 comment at face value? Come on. Romney said then that he had “always [been] for life.” If he was “always for life,” then ya wanna explain what kind of “conversion” you’re talking about?
"Always for life?" (Does he even know the difference?) Reagan did. The 1984 book proves it. But of course Romney's not done there...even before his "parent...donate" embryos for dissection comments to Couric last December, he told Iowa folks the previous August:
"I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." (Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007)
OK...looking at the 1994 & 2002 campaigns, how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?"
So…Romney’s still not even done -- confusing us even more in August, 2007:
Fox News’ Chris Wallace interviews him (Aug. 12, 2007). "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...
Rameumptom again in his weak defense: Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
Freepers, beware the person who reduces humanity-at-risk to a mere “question.” Rameumptom is no Nazi, but the Nazi tactic was to reduce Jews in the 1930s to the “Jewish question.” (Just a hint, Rameumptom to steer clear of such tactics)
Rameumptom: One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby…
Surely you’ve heard the statement that we don’t like certain politicians who say one thing before campaign sponsors in San Francisco and another thing before Scranton voters?
During the midst of what you reference as “his record” of being pro-abortion (1994 into his gubernatorial years), how did Romney “reassure” his “Scranton” crowd? He told them in a letter-to-the-editor that he's not really "pro-choice," after all: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01)
Ah, isn’t that touching? So you claim that he possessed this pro-abortion “record” and then changed?
You betcha he changed! He took three different positions on embryonic stem cell research in 5.5 years, changing yet again when he told Katie Couric in December 2007 that a "parent" of an otherwise adoptable surplus frozen embryo (in fact he used the word "adoption"!) could be "donated to research" and concluded that was perfectly "acceptable."
Come on…after all, embryonic stem cell research and the destruction of human life was supposedly THE VERY ISSUE that "converted" him to the pro-life side! You can't get more "pro-choice" than a politician saying that a "parent" can acceptably "donate" their offspring to be "dissected" to death.
And even putting aside the pro-abortion consequences of RomneyCare for the moment, don’t folks know that when a preacher takes to the pulpit, he’s not just talkin’ but that’s an action, too? Romney tried to claim that all his gubernatorial actions were pro-life, yet when he took the gubernatorial pulpit at a May 27 '05 press conference, he affirmed his campaign promises: "I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice."