Posted on 01/15/2012 12:22:32 PM PST by wagglebee
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, January 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney has been dogged by allegations that his shifting positions on abortion have been politically opportunistic. That perception will be bolstered by a new book that reveals Romney consulted polling data before deciding to campaign as “pro-choice” during his 1994 Senate race.
In the book Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics, Ronald Scott wrote that Romney commissioned former Reagan pollster Richard Wirthlin to survey Massachusetts voters on key issues. Wirthlin showed Romney a poll indicating any candidate describing himself as “pro-life” was unelectable in the state.
Before initiating his campaign against then-incumbent Senator Ted Kennedy, Romney informed the elders of his church about his decision to run as a supporter of abortion rights. In November 1993, Romney, Wirthlin, and Scott (all Mormons) presented their case to the leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a courtesy. Romney, then a Mormon leader in his state, explained his would label himself personally opposed to abortion but would take no action to outlaw it, a view he later described as “effectively pro-choice.”
The meeting proved a contentious one. “I may not have burned bridges, but a few of them were singed and smoking,” Romney said of the exchange.
The Romney campaign has declined to comment on the book’s allegations.
Meanwhile, new information has come to light about the relative whose death from an illegal abortion Romney credited with making him pro-choice in that race. Ann Keenan’s brother, Loren, married Lynn Romney, Mitt’s sister, in the 1950s. Lynn Keenan died at Wyandotte General Hospital on October 7, 1963, when Mitt was just 16-years-old. Her death certificate listed the cause of death as a “criminal recent abortion.”
Sandra Nye, Keenan’s friend from Michigan State University, said, “It was all very hush-hush, because [Mitt’s father George] Romney was governor, and they really wanted this very quiet and to go away.”
The girl’s parents wrote in her obituary that, “Memorial tributes may be sent to the Planned Parenthood Association.”
In a 1994 debate against Kennedy, Romney alluded to Keenan as the inspiration for his first conversion, from pro-life to pro-abortion:
Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that.
He later elaborated her case “obviously makes one see that regardless of one’s beliefs about choice, that you would hope it would be safe and legal.”
It would be the first of many twists-and-turns in the governor’s abortion record. The same year, his wife, Ann Romney, made a donation to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards would later say Mitt Romney “used to come to Planned Parenthood events. He asked for our endorsement.”
Kennedy would go on to defeat Romney by 17 percent of the vote in the election that saw Republicans regain control of Congress for the first time in decades.
In 2002, Romney chose to run again, this time for governor. During the campaign, he said, “On a personal basis, I don’t favor abortion. However, as governor of the commonwealth, I will protect a woman’s right to choose under the laws of the country and the commonwealth. That’s the same position I’ve had for many years.”
After his election, however, he began to change his views again, telling reporters he had been influenced by the state’s debate over creating embryos for scientific research. He stated, “When we were studying cloning in our state, I said, ‘Look, we have gone too far.’ It’s a brave new world mentality that Roe v. Wade has given us, and I changed my mind.”
Not everyone was convinced, believing Romney told Massachusetts voters what they wanted to hear in order to get elected. His adviser, Mike Murphy, would tell National Review during the 2008 Republican primary race, “He’s been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly.”
After his most recent pro-life turn, Romney said Ann’s contributions to Planned Parenthood speak “for her and not for me…Her positions are not terribly relevant for my campaign.” His wife later made substantial donations to Massachusetts Citizens for Life, becoming its co-chair.
Romney says he now favors overturning Roe v. Wade. When asked during a 2007 debate if he would sign a bill banning all abortions, he replied, “I’d be delighted to sign that bill.” He has said at various times he believes “abortion should be limited to only instances of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”
His relationship with the pro-life movement in 2012 has at times been strained. In June he declined to sign the Susan B. Anthony List’s pro-life pledge. In October, Romney told Mike Huckabee, “I’d make sure that the progress that has been made to provide for life and to protect human life is not progress that would be reversed.” Some liken that to his pro-choice position in earlier campaigns, when he said he “was personally pro-life but that I would protect a woman’s right to choose as the law existed. ”
This has led critics in both parties to question his core convictions on the issue. Republican strategist Keith Appell stated in 2007, “It’s part of Romney’s challenge: How many epiphanies have you had?”
Here is the "opinion" you gave in post #32:
"Safe, legal and rare" is really just a feel-good buzz-phrase, depending on who's in charge in DC and the Supreme Court, but I would just encourage you to think about what really CAN be done as we go forward, and who would continue to pursue a REAL version of "safe, legal, RARE"??
but please be sure you are citing facts, and not your opinions/judgements
I have given NOTHING but facts, but here is a recap for you:
FACT 1. Mitt has ALWAYS been pro-abortion and to that end put $50 taxpayer-funded abortions in Romneycare.
FACT 2. More than 53 MILLION babies have been murdered in the past 39 years and another is killed EVERY 24 SECONDS.
FACT 3. "Safe and legal and rare" is a leftist phrase that YOU repeated as some sort of "goal."
For example, it is my opinion that women continue to elect to have abortions, but I certainly do NOT support that! And what is your source for the "every 24 seconds" statistic?
There are approximately 1.3 million abortions per year in the U.S. (this statistic is readily available), you can do the math for yourself.
What does "IBTZ" mean?
Keep pushing Romney and abortion and you'll find out.
Free Republic used to be a thoughtful and civilized forum, and never in my long life here have I ever been accused of being a troll,
Have you pushed abortion on here before?
How is that when he has no core values and uses polls to tell him what to think?
He also praised Obamas bailouts/takeover of the auto industry.
How is that better?
Obamacare was crafted by the Romneycare blueprint. How is that better?
Do you even know who Romney is?
NEITHER! Why would anyone think that?! Just because I share an opinion of what the current state of the Union is, and because I think a couple of posters are being unfair to some of the GOP candidates?
ANY of the GOP candidates would be far better than Obama, and what has happened to Free Republic?! This IS a conservative forum, right?! I AM a conservative, I have an opinion!
My apologies to all if I offended anyone...it's JMHO, and next time I'll just stay out of it. Sorry for stepping in on this thread.
Well, I’d suggest you back way off on the safe and legal bit unless you’re truly curious about what IBTZ means.
Mitt Romney is a liberal. He is not a conservative in ANY sense of the word.
The owner of FR, Jim Robinson, has said that FR will not support Romney and that posters should go elsewhere to do so.
I have not posted recently for various personal reasons, but have been a FReeper for a LONG time, with a long record of posts going back. Very obviously I've been out of touch and made a huge mistake posting anything regarding the coming election season and politics.
I certainly do NOT want to personally know what IBTZ means, unless some kind soul could just explain it, quietly, without inflicting it on me?!
If someone just wanted to post a bunny with a moon-pie on his head, or something about mooses and cheese, that would be fine, too, and thank you all!
IBTZ means “In Before the ZOT!”
It means someone thinks you are on the verge of FR extinction, and is posting to show they know what is coming, and they were here before it happened.
IATZ is the corollary—it means “In After the ZOT!”. It means you missed the big show and the lightning strike, but not by much most likely.
Since Romney is indeed the worst candidate as he has ZERO conservative positions, is a flipflopper with no core, and is no different than Obama, supporting the Mittwit will get you the ZOT in short order.
And rightfully so. The future of America and our families are at stake.
It's probably best if you can "catch up" and read some before posting and sticking your foot in it again. :-)
The obit and death certificate are posted and or linked on this thread. You tell me ...
The article misstated. It was Romney’s S-i-L that died.
You just insanely contended that God wants people to support Mitt Romney.
That is sheer lunacy.
And they would have been right to warn you about that. Just look at one important criterion - SCOTUS appointments, which proves the point made by those who tried to rationalize:
Nixon - William Rehnquist
GHW - Clarence Thomas
vs
Clinton - Breyer, Ginsburg
Obama - Sotomayor, Kagan
Do you for a moment think that a Democrat would have appointed Rehnquist or Thomas to the Supreme Court?
Ford's appointment of Stevens and GHW's appointment of Souter is the exception, not the rule.
This is not counting dozens of other lower court appointments.
Moral of the story - even a "liberal" Republican appoints conservative Supreme Court Justices. So there is a big difference in outcome on SCOTUS appointments between even a liberal Republican and a Democrat. That should be the first thing people should think about as far as consequences of electing a POTUS.
Nixon also appointed: Herod Blackmun (author of Roe vs. Wade), Warren Burger (the other "Minnesota Twin") better than Herod, but still voted for Roe vs. Wade and almost all of its progeny; Lewis Powell, a silly old fart who was appointed to be business friendly and wound up "gay" friendly and no threat to Roe vs. Wade. Long after he resigned as POTUS, the Trickster admitted being a pro-abort;
Gerald Ford: Nixon appointed Feckless Ford to be VPOTUS (presumably thinking Congress might back off chasing the Trickster from office if they pondered that a convicted Trickster would be succeeded by such a brainless and ineffective dolt as Ford, the incredible spineless man, who appointed the rank baby-killing disgrace and lavender coddling menace and gun-grabbing fascist John Paul Stevens to the SCOTUS. Offhand it is verrrry difficult to remember ANYTHING identifying John Paul Stevens as an actual Republican other than possibly an occasional round of golf or an interest in polo matches;
Bear in mind that Jimmuh Peanut never got to even nominate a justice and, if he had the opportunity to name Griffin Bell, might even have done some good. Remember that it was the Hyannis Port wonder who appointed Byron "Whizzer" White who served as a solid justice and voted against Roe vs. Wade and other social revolutionary schemes and enthusiasms;
Even Ronaldus Maximus appointed one and a half SCOTUS disasters: Sandra Day (pro-abort extraordinaire and Planned Barrenhood mouthpiece in the Arizona State Senate) O'Connor as to whom the extraordinarily unprincipled James Baker caused the also unprincipled Kenneth Starr to submit the Starr Memorandum to Reagan which was a pack of lies and then Baker prevented any other input to Reagan until the pretty blonde pro-abort was nominated and confirmed. When Robert Bork's nomination was thwarted, Reagan nominated Douglas Ginzberg (sp.?) who had to withdraw and then Sandra Day O'Kennedy who ultimately sold every principle he ever had to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor as the unpredictable vote in the middle usually cast (except on guns) as wrongly as O'Connor's votes had been.
George Herbert Walker (New World Order) Bush named Swish Souter (as reliable a leftist vote as any justice named by a "Republican" POTUS since Eisenhower named NJ Demonrat radical William Brennan). Souter was an approximate equivalent of William O. Douglas who also voted right on a case every five years or so. Souter's vote generally cancelled out Clarence Thomas's vote.
Clinton's naming of Breyer (who does indulge major heresies like paying attention to the decisions of courts of other nations) has not been as bad as the other three Clinton/Obama nominations.
The fact of the matter as to the Mittwit that EVEN AFTER HE CLAIMS TO HAVE BEEN CONVERTED TO PRO-LIFE, he named not a single pro-lifer to any court at any level in Massachusetts but named a gaggle of pro-lavender babykiller leftist judges. Don't listen to what the Mittwit says: Watch what he does. If you STILL think he ought to be POTUS, then the only imaginable excuse is that he would be good for your portfolio or for your polo club or for your daughter's Junior League. After 44 years of voting GOP for POTUS and having to hold my nose in voting Nixon (twice), Ford, Bush I (twice), Dole, and McCain, I am now immune to the nonsense that voting for leftists and social revolutionaries in GOP drag is somehow a good idea. The record proves otherwise.
Few people here would criticize Reagan who also named Scalia. Nor will I. Many here would criticize Bush the Younger but I will not. Money issues are just not verrrrry high on my give a rat's patoot list. He took out Saddam Hussein and did not quake in his boots over wars and refused to abide the likes of his father's pals James Baker and Brent Scowcroft and named patriots instead. Harriet Myers would probably have been a disaster but that disaster was averted in favor of Sam Alito and he also named John Roberts.
The Mittwit has one and only one decent quality: he has been a good family man, married to his only wife for many decades, with no known track record for cheating on her, and they have apparently raised four or more kids who are a credit to both of them. That's nice but will not suffice in the face of the fact that the Mittwit is as rank an enemy of conservative values on issues that count as ANY Demonrat.
Your last paragraph is pure fantasy.
As one example of lower court judges, the lavender queen federal trial judge in California who overturned the results of the referendum in even uber leftist California banning "gay""marriage" was an appointee of GHW(NWO)Bush. He appointed social revolutionaries whenever he though no one was looking. The Mittwit may actually be worse even if he is not married to Barbara Bush or Betty Ford.
If Obozo is re-elected because of the refusal of the spineless twit leftist airhead wing of the GOP to stand down and get out of the way rather than buying the nomination with mountains of money and lamestream media manipulation as usual, the Senate GOP should dig its heels in and absolutely refuse to approve ANY of his appointments judicial or otherwise, keep the Senate in perpetual session to avoid "recess" appointments and understand that we are in the non-military equivalent of civil war. When agencies cannot function (like NLRB) that is a win. When judges are utterly overworked and start retiring and suffering physically from the work load, that is a win.
We are either serious or we are not. I am serious. How about you?
The probability of a Democrat appointing a conservative Supreme Court Justice is exactly ZERO. It will never happen.
The probability of a liberal Republican appointing a conservative Supreme Court Justice is greater than ZERO (in the case of Nixon and GHW, it was something like 25%).
25% is considered MUCH greater than ZERO. In fact, an event whose probability is 25% (e.g. getting a hot waitress in a restaurant in Las Vegas) is infinitesimally superior in occurrence than one whose probability is ZERO(e.g. riding on the wings of the tooth fairy).
Given the choice between 25% and ZERO, most serious, sane people will choose 25%.
I’m afraid that we will be faced with a choice of voting for a democrat or a communist in November.
romney is not a repub. He is a rino while baraaq is a communist.
In the end there is not much difference.
If baraaq wins we become Venezuela fast.
If romney wins we become Greece fast.
don’t see a good option in either.
When guns are grabbed in America, it should be by Demonrats and not by Vichy "Republicans" who are just as disdainful of Middle America as Obozo.
When babies are slaughtered in America (more than a million per year) it will not be because I voted for some quisling like Romney to get a mythical (Mittical?) 25% chance that Mittwit will stop the accommodationist surrender monkey (to everything leftist) habits of his lifetime as an elitist wimp who cares about NOTHING but money, money, money (his, not your money, unless you are his fellow elitist spaghetti spine or my money). The Demonrats can get the credit for extending the American Holocaust. Quisling Republicans have already contributed too much by appointing the likes of William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Herod Blackmun, Warren Burger, Lewis Powell, Swish Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor, Sandra Day O'Kennedy and so many other disgraces to SCOTUS and an infinite variety of rank social revolutionary elitist trash to the lower courts and to many bureaucratic positions as well. Dubya made a verrrry good start by cutting the establishmentarian trash of the American Bar Association out of the loop as to judicial appointments. ABA is no better than lamestream media. Let the Demonrats kill the babies if they MUST be killed.
When there are TARP bills after TARP bills to save those "too big to fail" and screw the rest of us because soulless investment bankers and corporate raiders and privileged job destroyers are just soooooo much more important than ANYTHING ELSE in our society, when they shovel another $16 trillion in printed inflationary funny money from the Federal Reserve to their elitist and brainless soulmates in the European Union and its bankrupt socialist satrapies lest the value of their autopilot investments be disrupted or jeopardized in any way, then it should be Demonrats who wreak such destruction on our nation.
When the gummint lays waste to the institution of the family by making "committed" rump-ranging the alleged equivalent of actual marriage with all of the tax perks and insurance perks that have been traditional to actual marriage, by handing innocent children over to be adopted by Adam and Steve for whatever purposes they may have, and do so at the expense of normal Americans whether the "benefits" are extended by government itself or government edict or by the moral spinelessness and cowardice of private corporations run by Mittwit surrender-alikes, it should be Demonrats who are the marriage destroyers if marriage simply MUST be destroyed.
When the nation itself is utterly bankrupted (as opposed to the pampered, privileged and protected members of the Mittwit's social set), leaving Mittens to reassure the nation that, as to his finances, "I'm all right, Jack!" as though we worried about the likes of the Mittwit, it should be the Demonrats who destroy the nation's finances. After all, they have worked sooooo hard to earn the credit for national bankruptcy.
You may wish to settle for any old trash at all as a POTUS candidate so long as there is an R beside the candidate's name. Good luck! You won't be doing it with my vote any more. I am a conservative. I am a Catholic. I am no longer a Republican as a self-identification. If Mittwit is nominated, I don't care if he chooses someone morally superior (almost inevitable) like Attila the Hun as a running mate, he does NOT get my vote. Nor will any Vichy Republican ever get my vote again.
I have spent nearly my entire adult life discouraging and disparaging third party enthusiasms by conservatives. I apologize to them for that error.
There is absolutely NO REASON for any sane person to believe that the Mittwit will ever nominate conservative SCOTUS or inferior court judges. NONE!!!
When the GOP has gone the way of its money-grubbing Federalist (Hamilton) and Whig (Clay) predecessors (a cyclical inevitability in American politics), the shell can be used to rebuild a populist GOP (Reagan) or to replace it with an entirely new party.
I am inclined to the second of these alternatives since such a party can be built to EXCLUDE the albatrosses of Wall Street who have been a permanent drag on the GOP's and America's fortunes (no pun intended). We can take the Reagan legacy from the GOP and build on it.
A new party shorn of the GOP's sorry baggage of being viewed as the party of privilege can attract a coalition of the sort of people who:
a) fight our wars and man our police departments;
b) drive our ambulances and provide medical/nursing care;
c) volunteer and challenge gummint excesses;
d) attend our churches and love God;
e) create and run the small family-owned businesses that are the backbone of the American economy and the employers of many in such a coalition;
f) are the volunteers of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America;
g) spend significant time and resources on the moral upbringing of their children and grandchildren.
That coalition, shorn of racial baggage and mythology, can actually attract:
1) black and Hispanic working people of modest means but of great religious principle;
2) every gun owner in America;
3) every voter ardently devoted to family values and disgusted with baby-killing and with Adam and Steve;
4) every parent enraged at the propaganda shoveled at his or her beloved kids in the name of gummint or even private education by leftist edjumakators typically at taxpayer expense (fisting, anyone?);
5) every NASCAR and other automobile enthusiast;
6) every sports fan who burns for absolute victory rather than indeterminate outcomes;
7) every person (parent or otherwise) who actually cares about genuine education and the life of the mind and despises empty propaganda posing as gummint edjumakashun;
8) every American absolutely disgusted and enraged with the all too obvious agenda-driven lamestream media liars who seek to manipulate the GOP into surrendering on any actually important issue and the nation into becoming a wasteland of socialist dreck without God or guns or babies or real families;
9) every American who yearns for the restoration of a self-sufficient America which makes things with the hands of private sector workers and American machinery and which pay decent wages and benefits for a decent day's hard work;
10) every plain spoken and plain living American who is passionately dedicated to what was once the normal expectation of upward mobility in exchange for real effort that, taken together, is the American Dream.
Put your statistics where the sun shineth not. ANY deviation from responsibility by ANY squishball spineless "Republican" on matters of appointing actually social conservatives WITHOUT EXCEPTION to SCOTUS, to inferior courts, and to relevant positions of government responsibility is simply UNACCEPTABLE.
Rule or ruin! Let the GOP rue the day that the GOP thinks those who were formerly its social conservatives are not deadly serious. If the GOP actually wants to win, dump Romney NOW or else. Then the GOP can win with a decent and utterly socially conservative candidate or, if that candidate should lose to Obozo (quite unlikely) at least live to fight another day. If not, not! That is the brainless investment bankers' choice! It is up to them. If they make the wrong and stubborn decision and are then financially destroyed, I won't lose sleep. Politically speaking, I want a divorce from these pathetic creatures.
If you are into statistics, if statistics are your god, then come up with this statistic: what percentage of social conservatives defecting from the Mittwit will guarantee his defeat as the GOP nominee in November? Rule or ruin!
Serious, sane and sensible men either marry the "hot waitress...in Vegas" (who won't be that hot forever) if she proves to be reliable wife and mother material or marries the somewhat less glamorous but likely much more reliable lady who will be his worthy wife and mother from his hometown or circle of close acquaintances (or even his church!) and stays faithful to her and his family. She may not be a relentless customer of Victoria's Secret or Frederick's of Hollywood, but she will be with him through the bad times as well as through the good if he has chosen wisely.
THIS NEEDS TO BE A VANITY ALL ON ITS OWN!
Pleeeeeeeaaaase.....
I think that the late great Frank Rizzo should have been the last Republican mayor of Philthadelphia. He had been a Democrat (never a Demonrat) mayor, was forced out of the Democrat Party, ran and was nominated as a Republican in later years. He was very different from whoever was the last "Republican" before who would have been mayor in the 1950s and who was, likely, a liberal slimeball posing as a Republican. Rizzo was a Republican (national variety/Reaganite) in spirit all along. Running for re-election as a Democrat in 1975, Frank Rizzo promised that his second term would make Attila the Hun "look like a faggot."
God bless you and yours!
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.
