Posted on 09/27/2006 11:07:20 AM PDT by SDGOP
In his latest interview with RedState, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney responds to a question about his abortion position by saying that he's never adopted the label "pro-choice."
That's all well and good. Mitt Romney wants to be called pro-life. I'd like to be the King of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.
But let's not kid ourselves: there is no substantive difference between the position labeled "pro-choice," declaring your support for "the right to choose." And that is something that Mitt Romney has done repeatedly over the course of his political career. To say otherwise is to tell a lie.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
I understand that many FReepers consider Romney a RINO. Not me. From what I've seen so far, Romney is conservative on some issues and more moderate on other issues. Its to what extent Romney's conservatism is of a principled nature that I'm questioning.
Dear conservative blonde,
"I can truly see how someone can and does come to a pro-life stance after understanding just what embryonic stem cell experimentation is all about."
Many things are possible.
But this one doesn't seem very likely.
So, Mr. Romney is a pro-abort from 1970 until some time after 2002, in spite of over a million abortions per year every year from the mid-1970s on.
He is pro-abort in spite of the legality of partial birth abortion, which is nothing more than pure infanticide.
He is a pro-abort in spite of the fact that abortion is not only legal in the first trimester, but in the second, the third, and even during birth.
He is pro-abort in spite of every statistic showing that fewer than 4% of abortions are performed in circumstances of rape, incest, genetic deformity, or the life of the mother.
But killing a few hundred embryonic human beings for parts suddenly converts him on the issue of life.
Like I said, it's possible.
But coming after he's decided not to run again in (pro-abort) Massachusetts, but rather for the presidential nomination of the (pro-life) Republican Party, you will excuse the rest of us if we hold his "conversion" in doubt.
As well, part of Mr. Romney's problem seems to have been that he can't keep his story straight. At times, I've seen him admit that he's converted on this cause. Make a persuasive case, and I might believe that.
But at times, he seems to deny that he was ever "pro-choice" (as many pro-aborts call themselves).
He can't have it both ways. Either, he was a pro-abort and he converted to pro-life, or he was always pro-life, and thus didn't need to convert to the cause. Except that he seems to at times deny the first proposition, and his record denies the second.
sitetest
Dear SDGOP,
Some folks believed that the adverse actions against folks at Tailhook were partly or completely politically-motivated and unfair persecutions.
sitetest
Excellent post.
Sad to say, but the long and the short of Election 2008 is that after eight years of a GOP controlled executive branch and legislative branch, it's the Democrats' election to lose. In order to have a chance, the GOP has to come up with a candidate who appeases red-meat conservatives AND doesn't garner as much hatred as GWB does from the left.
And it wouldn't hurt if the Dims nominated a moonbat like Hitlery or Dean, or an empty suit like Gore or Edwards.
He promised to protect "woman's right to choose" while governor. Some Democrats who otherwise would not have voted for him get screwed if he uses the Massachusetts governorship as a launching pad for the Presidency where he will certainly appoint judges who are inclined to overturn Roe v. Wade.
I think those Democrats have a legitimate beef but in the grand scale of politics it is not a showstopper for me by any stretch.
I have trouble trusting a Repub that was electable in Massachussetts.
"I have trouble trusting a Repub that was electable in Massachussetts."
You've proved my earlier point:
"He gets a bad rap on Free Republic largely, I believe, because he's the Governor of Massachusetts. People wrongly see him as a RINO."
You think abortion is the biggest problem of our times. I, and the majority of the people in this country, don't. Like I said, if we don't protect this country, you'll have your ban on abortions, I guarantee it.
Miltie is in good company. Remember the hildebeast moved just a tad to the right to court the moderates. Bleah!
I'm still waiting for a response to post #180...
Looks like SDGOP may have disappeared for now.
"The conservative Christian choice at this moment has to be Frist."
Frist comes off as a bit wimpy, Hillary will eat his lunch.
"The most articulate conservative is Gingrich."
Trus and I would gladly cast my vote for him, but he is not electable due to poor judgement in his personal life in the past.
"The most likely to easily win is Cheney. (yeah, I know he's not running....)"
I wish to God he was, just to see him in another debate. Him vs Edwards was like watching your team sweep the world series. It was fun to watch.
You all can think what you want...
None of you know how to dance with the opposition!
If we waited for you folks the Dems would rule this nation hands down!
Me, too.
President Hillary (sorry, Reichsfuehrer Hillary) is going to make lots of people here on FR yearn for what could've been under President Romney, President McCain, or President Giuliani.
I can see you Diogenesis, don't understand or just ignorant of the Health plan
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.