What a scumbag.
Interesting.
Here’s some more from the article.
“By Scott’s account, Romney wasn’t seeking approval or permission; he was telling the officials what he was going to do. Scott quotes a “senior church leader” saying Romney “didn’t ask what his position should be, nor did he ask the brethren to endorse his position. He came to explain, and his explanation was consistent with church teachings and policies.”
According to Scott, some of the leaders were unhappy with Romney’s plan and let him know it. “I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking,” Romney told Scott in a phone conversation.
In Scott’s account, Romney displayed plenty of independence from church influence. But why did he feel the need to brief church leaders in the first place? The Romney campaign declined to comment on that or any other aspect of Scott’s book. A Mormon church spokesman said only, “I do not know of the meeting, but it is our policy not to comment on private meetings anyway.”
Scott has his own view. “[Romney] was not obliged to brief them,” Scott said in an interview. “He probably was obliged to let them know as a matter of courtesy before he would take some stands on various issues that would raise eyebrows, because he was a fairly important officer of the church.”
I also find it interesting that Romney was released from his Church position about 3 weeks after deciding to run for the Senate seat. Since he was in a hight Church position at the time of the meeting, it makes sense. But afterwards, and when he was running for Governor, I know of no such conflict.
ping
Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I hate it when I hear politicians say that. They are NOT pro-life. That’s like saying:
I am personally opposed to children being sexually molested by adults, but I will protect your right to molest all the children you desire.
With Romney you don’t even have to ask if he is lying now or then. If his mouth is moving, he’s lying. The only truth he knows is whatever his audience wants to hear at the time.
He and all his lying friends need to quit and go join the other lying commies in the democrat party.
FUMR!! NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS!! GET THE EFF OFF FR IF YOU’RE PROMOTING THAT ABORTIONIST/PROGRESSIVE LIAR!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7OQoBxZZPqU
In other words he was saying “I know killing the unborn is wrong, yes I know better. But I am going to go ahead and promote it anyway”.
That two faced unprincipled piece of debris!
If I said what I truly think of that bastard Romney I would get booted off of FR.
The man is a scumbag. Actually, that is incorrect. He isn’t a man. Just a scumbag.
FUMR!
He WILL NOT ever get a vote from me under ANY circumstance in ANY election for ANY position. Period end of story.
So now he is trying to use the MORMONS as cover? Color Mittens DESPERATE. What scary numbers must his internal Iowa polls be showing him to make him push this crap put there?
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.
- - - - - - - -
Couple of things...
First he was only a Stake president at best, they make it sound bigger than it was. Second, the LDS church is NOT as pro-life as many people think. That has been proven here over and over again. Their own ‘Handbook of Instructions’ says abortion is fine if approved by prayer.
Third, Mitt is a lying scumbag, he has never been personally pro-life as evidenced by his comments and flip flops.
Finally, any politician who trades his values (if he were pro-life) for votes is a scumbag who does not deserve to be in office.
The bottom line is that Mitt Romney must be defeated, but the current circular firing squad with some for Newt and some for Santorum and some for Perry and others for Bachmann adds up to a Romney win next Tuesday in Iowa.
That will give Romney momentum into New Hampshire where he already has a substantial lead, then momentum going into South Carolina and Florida later in the month.
Romney’s momentum must be stopped dead next Tuesday and we have got to stop playing his game of promoting various candidates against each other dividing the conservative vote.
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.
>> pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life
A non-existent dichotomy.
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 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.
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.In November 1993, according to Scott, Romney said he and Wirthlin, a Mormon whose brother and father were high-ranking church officials, traveled to Salt Lake City to meet with church elders. Gathering in the Church Administration Building, Romney, in Scott's words, "laid out for church leaders ... what his public position would be on abortion -- personally opposed but willing to let others decide for themselves."
COMPLETELY changes the narrative on Romney: the propaganda he was pushing was that he had a change in heart back in the mid '00s. NOW the truth comes out from the horse's mouth. An actual admission of his status as a chameleon.
Funny, though, that it would come out from the Examiner. They endorsed Romney a couple of weeks ago. Surely they'd have to know that this will utterly sink him among ANY truly pro-life voter.
What...to lie and say whatever it takes to get elected?
No sale, Mitt!
“Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His CULT”.
Vote for Mitt for Omnipotent Government! He’s so dreamy he could be a TeeVee President.
:Romney was personally pro-life”
Yak-squeeze!
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.
So he lied then or he’s lying now. If you claim to be personally pro-life but don’t back it up with public words and actions once you have the spotlight, you are an opportunistic liar.
IE; Mitt Romney.