Replies

Here's an article from the Boston Herald from 1994:

Abortion-rights group rips Romney
Boston Herald
By ANDREW MIGA
10 September 1994

The leading abortion-rights group in Massachusetts yesterday accused GOP Senate candidate W. Mitt Romney of exaggerating his pro-choice views.

"He is not pro-choice," said Joyce Cunha, executive director of Mass Choice. "He's trying to have it both ways. He's anti-choice at heart. Massachusetts voters deserve to know the truth."

The Romney camp sharply denied the charge.

"The fact is that Mitt does support a woman's right to choose, and we hope Joyce and other members of Mass Choice meet with Mitt and listen to what he has to say," said Romney spokeswoman Ann Murphy.

Cunha cited a recent mailing by Massachusetts Citizens for Life urging its members to vote for Romney, who accepted the group's informal endorsement.

"Mr. Romney cannot credibly call himself pro-choice while accepting the endorsement of the state's largest anti-choice lobby," Cunha said.

Romney has said he would support the Freedom of Choice Act with two qualifications: as long as it did not go beyond codifying Roe v. Wade and as long as it leaves it to states to decide on using federal funds for abortion.

Romney has been criticized for some for not taking a clearer stand on abortion. One of his former GOP rivals, Janet Jeghelian, yesterday assailed Romney for waffling on abortion rights.

"I feel as though he's been ambivalent, ambigious," said Jeghelian, who said abortion rights were a critical issue to her.

She charged that Romney was opposed to the Freedom of Choice Act earlier this summer before the state party's convention and that Romney also said he opposed federal funding for abortion.

"To hear he's moderated some of these positions bothers me," she said. "We have to find more clarity in his message. He will be pilloried by Ted Kennedy this fall if he doesn't."

Cunha said her group would work hard this fall to get Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) re-elected.

"We will be highlighting the importance of Ted Kennedy's leadership on abortion and work to get out as many anti-Romney voters as possible," Cunha said.

______

Here's another from 1994:

Anti-abortion group endorses Romney bid

Boston Herald
By Ed Hayward

08 September 1994

U.S. Senate candidate W. Mitt Romney has tried to mold himself in the image of a Republican abortion rights advocate, but that didn't stop a Massachusetts anti-abortion group from endorsing him as the "logical vote for those who value human life."

The September issue of Massachusetts Citizens For Life News calls incumbent U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy "perhaps the worst person in the U.S. Senate from a prolife point of view."

Spokesmen for John Lakian, Romney's GOP primary opponent, and Kennedy said the endorsement showed Romney has tried to work both sides of the abortion divide to win votes.

"Mitt Romney is not pro-choice," said Rick Gureghian, Kennedy's campaign spokesman. "The endorsement unequivocally proves that Mitt Romney doesn't support a woman's right to choose and never will support a woman's right to choose."

Romney's "said he's privately pro-life, but as far as a public pronouncements he's attempted to mouth the pro-choice stand," said Lakian campaign manager John Alvis. "I think . . . the women of Massachusetts will see through that," Alvis said.

The antiabortion group dismissed Lakian because of his recurring credibility problems.

Lakian "is neither electable nor, unfortunately, able to tell it like it is," the group said. "With respect to the abortion issue, he'll say whatever fits the moment."

Alvis denied his candidate had flip-flopped on the abortion issue and accused Romney of courting the anti-abortion vote at the Republican convention and privately opposing abortion.

MCFL's endorsement of Romney is hardly ringing.

"Mitt Romney is electable and the MCFL Federal PAC believes that he is light years better on the prolife issues than the incumbent, and although we would prefer a 100 percent prolife candidate, in the real world we don't have one."

But Romney's camp welcomed any endorsement in the weeks prior the Sept. 20 faceoff with Lakian, though a spokesman said Romney didn't meet with the MCFL's representatives.

"We're happy to have any group endorse Mitt, especialy when you look at what they have to say about his Republican opponent," said Charles Manning, a Romney adviser who added that Romney has been "pro-choice" since 1970.

However, the group got several of Romney's positions on abortion legislation wrong, Manning said.

As opposed to the endorsement, Romney supports a federal health care plan option that includes abortion services, would vote for a law codifying the 1972 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion and backs federal funding for abortions as long as states can decide if they want the money, Manning said.

_______

So, we have pro-abortion types saying that Mitt is not pro-choice and a pro-life organization (the Massachusetts Citizens for Life, who have endorsed him in 08) saying that he is acceptably pro-life.(And this was before his "conversion" in 2004.) So one has to wonder, if, as has been charged, Mitt Romney is a "far-left, judicial supremacist", why would the Boston Globe be so adamant about outing one of their own? And why would the MCFL have given Mitt their endorsement, not once but twice, if he were in fact a flaming liberal? If liberals thought, as do some that call themselves conservative here on this forum, that Romney will be the death of the Republican party, wouldn't they strive to keep their mouths shut rather than rip him at every opportunity? Something to think about for those who are willing to give Mitt a look.