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 ...
It's very interesting that both George Allen and now Mitt Romney are being hit w/derogatory charges. After all, you know, they are being mentioned as future Republican presidential candidates. Could it be that the Hillary forces are trying pre-emptive destruction of strong opponents to her own ambition?
"Better to be led by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian"....Martin Luther
Re#42, close but no cigar.
A religious test? Are you saying that whether or not an 8-month-old pre-born baby is just some esoteric religious belief?
I'd say one's position on life -- ON LIFE! -- is a litmus test if anything is.
Redstate is hardly a DU organ, its a very romney friendly site. Yet when it says something critical about him, and note that the editors promoted this diary(and there all very pro romney), what does it say about it? Romney clearly stated one thing and was proven otherwise.
Find the quote where Romney says "I am pro-choice" or give up, people. Calling someone a liar by inference is dirty pool, and we are supposed to be above that.
You can disagree with, and not support Romney without calling him a liar. Try it.
You label something a cult merely because you've not bothered to look into it for yourself...or someone has told you to think that way. It's awfully convenient to dismiss views that challenge your own as a "cult," including that label which is so often applied to Catholics by some protestant. But that's shameful frankly. I would think in today's America we were beyond such shallow and bigotted thinking.
I guess I can understand not voting for a Muslim because they don't necessarily share our view of the world and would likely change the course of US national security policy such as in the war on terror and our relationship with Israel.
But in nearly every respect Romney is conservative, pro-American and pro-national security, so what do his personal religious beliefs have to do with how he'd govern the nation? Mormons didn't fly airplanes into buildings on 9-11, so really I cannot begin nor do I want to understand your way of "thinking." It's beneath true Christians and beneath thinking people.
You talk about Muslims, but frankly your holding a person's religion against them and viciously labelling them based on religious preference is little different than what radical Muslims do.
***I'm really so torn on this subject.***
Don't be torn, mpackard. I hope and PRAY that Romney is not going to represent my party for presidential election. BUT, if he does, remember that there is such a thing as the lesser of two evils. If Romney is the lesser of two evils then I would have no choice but to vote for him. In any event, a Democrat would support abortion, so you have no choice in that matter, and can, in conscience, support the Republican you think would be a better president.
Conservative Christians should just write in Jesus Christ.
He's the only candidate they agree with 100% of the time.
As an active Mormon myself, I am very uncomfortable with Mitt. He appears to be a crass opportunist, willing to say anything to get elected. If he was truly pro-choice and now is not, he should publicly admitt he's changed his mind and explain it, but to maintain a 'foolish consistance' or obsfuscate does no one any good.
Not a bad assumption. I don't know the source of this article, but it seems awfully partisan and it certainly leaves out pertinent facts about how Romney came to change his views, and it was more nuanced than simply making himself more politically palatable.
Reagan was a democrat, but his positions genuinely evolved. In the 1950s he was speaking for GM all around the country about what he believed in(he wasn't running for office) and a woman pointed out to him that he sounded like a republican. he said well maybye i should switch registartions, and the woman happened to have a card with her so Reagan did. Ever since then reagan held the same set of core beleifs his entire career, from the 1960s all the way through his presidency. He embraced conservatism from the outset. There is a genuine evolution, and theres a fake one. Genuine is somebody like zell miller who after his grandchildren were born became pro life, he had no political benefit to do so, but he did.
What romney is doing is political opportunism. He is saying what people want to hear so he can be elected. He did it in MA, and now he's doing it because he wants to be the republican nominee. He only changed his position as he came closer to running for president, that's not a genuine change thats blatant opportunism.
I'm not questioning your conservative credentials, and don't you question mine. WHat i am pointing out is that your guy clearly lied, even the romney friendly site redstate pointed it out.
At this moment, Allen is in deep turmoil over racial issues. He has to win that information war and get back to campaigning for the presidency. In the meantime, he's not the leading candidate.
I think Frist was knowledgeable of the new ability to take single cells from embryos without injuring the embryo.
We have pointed it out over and over where romney clearly states he is pro choice. You strike me as the kind of person, who if we dropped you off in a walmart parking lot still couldn't find the store.
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.