Posted on 12/29/2011 8:49:56 PM PST by Fred
Edited on 12/29/2011 9:32:44 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
In 1993, Mitt Romney was a successful businessman with an urge to enter public life and a plan to challenge Ted Kennedy for a Senate seat from Massachusetts.
Romney was also a high-ranking official in the Mormon church -- in charge of all church affairs in the Boston area -- with a dilemma over abortion. Romney was personally pro-life, and the church was pro-life, but a majority of the Massachusetts electorate was decidedly pro-choice.
How Romney handled that dilemma is described in a new book, "Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics," by Boston journalist Ronald Scott. A Mormon who admires Romney but has had his share of disagreements with him, Scott knew Romney from local church matters in the late 1980s.
Scott had worked for Time Inc., and in the fall of 1993, he says, Romney asked him for advice on how to handle various issues the media might pursue in a Senate campaign. Scott gave his advice in a couple of phone conversations and a memo. In the course of the conversations, Scott says, Romney outlined his views on the abortion problem.
According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.
All lies, all the time: Mitt's greatest hits
That one just made my year.
I find it very, very difficult to look at Romney and see just an average pol who changes positions for electoral gain.
I would so very much like to deny he’s a flip-flopper, because Obama is the king of the flip-floppers and he does it without blinking or the MSNBC crowd pausing in their worship of him.
I don’t hate Romney the way some folks do, but I just don’t see why I should deny what my own eyes have seen. The guy seems to have none of the qualities I like in politicians, and he seems to be solely about money. That’s the one thing in his life he doesn’t seem to waver on.
Maybe I’m just too much of a hardcore pro-lifer to see him as anything but the guy who was trying to position himself as just as pro-abortion as Teddy Kennedy here in Massachusetts.
I just don’t think I’m ever going to be able to see this guy as anything but the lesser of two evils. Which makes him...well, evil.
If he wins Iowa and NH, with our circular firing squad continuing its work, I see Mr. Romney squeezing through to win SC and FL.
I hate evil Willard.
I've lost count. Ask TOL. LOL
Doubtful because by SC & FL, two of three of Perry, Michele, and Santorum will LIKELY be long gone from the race.
Advantage: Newt. Curtains: Willard.
Killing babies is ok, if your pollsters and focus groups say it will help you gain power and get some cool stationery. They can’t vote.
Mitt is a power hungry selfish asshole.
7 zots today, some were Paultards. I’m on the Viking Kitty ping list.
>> pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life
A non-existent dichotomy.
Thanks.
The ol’zot button has got quite a workout these past several days.
As we enter into 2012, I think we can expect a lot more trolls and zots.
Beautifully stated. I second that 100%.
I don’t want a repeat of 2008 when McCain rode through a divided vote to victory in SC.
From your lips to God’s ears.
But Romney must lose next Tuesday, that is the bottom line.
LOL
and here it comes:
Mitt Epstein....
Flipping Tard. You have no principles. You don’t sell out your soul for expediency, erh, I guess you did but...
FUMR
I went back and counted my viking kitty pings and got 11 just today.
I know I already commented on this story, but I can’t get it out of my head. What is this story telling us, exactly—that we should be OK with Romney because he told his church leaders what he REALLY believed while telling the electorate something else? This is GOOD??
The man hasn’t a shred of integrity that I can see. I look at him, and I don’t see the malice I see in many pols I hate, I see this smiling shark who doesn’t think he’s hurting people but doesn’t care (like Obama), but someone who can’t understand why anyone thinks he’s doing anything wrong!
It’s not even about self-righteousness. It’s like watching an alien being wearing the skin of a human. I feel uncomfortable saying such negative things about someone, but I’ve tried so hard not to pile on Romney around here because there’s no point to it, but this one story seems to be the straw that broke this camel’s back.
And I can’t stand any of the others running.
Iowa and New Hampshire will never be a indicator on what Conservatives want until either State starts electing the Conservative candidate for the National Election.
There are only 4 primaries in January, 2012.
Iowa - 2008 Blue State
New Hampshire - 2008 Blue State
South Carolina - 2008 Red State
Florida - 2008 Blue State
Even if Romney is able to come in 5th in either IA or NH, they will not matter in the long run. Newt will be nominee.
That’s right, 11 just today, and that’s an all-time record for me. Previous record before this current spate of Paultrolls was four in one day. Sheesh!
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.