Posted on 08/09/2007 8:09:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
MITT ROMNEY is determined to prove he's pro-life. How about proving he's pro-truth?
Every time Romney tries to explain his evolution from supporter to opponent of abortion rights, his honesty comes into question. That's because his explanations over the years don't add up.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
“Rebutted, yes.” Poorly, though, since it is impossible to refute his own words and record. So, “discredited”? Not on your life.
“Reagan supported abortion at one time.”
This statement is false, and I for one am tired of the late great President Reagan’s views being falsified in a feeble attempt to justify Romney’s record of aggressively legitimizing abortion on demand.
In a legal environment that prohibited all abortions in the 60’s, Reagan signed a law that established exceptions on the basis of rape, incest, or to save the life or health of the mother. (Absent health, the most broadly supported pro-life standard these days.)
Reagan was unsure and reticent about the health exception, but signed the bill anyway. Within a year, according to Reagan biographer Lou Cannon, Reagan was characterizing his having signed the bill as a mistake — the only public policy decision he ever made that he publicly disavowed, Cannon says.
Reagan did not use his government post or his vast rhetorical skills to sing the praises of “a woman’s right to choose” (as Romney has).
Reagan was not endorsed by pro-abortion PACs (as Romney was).
Reagan never portrayed supporting the legal right to terminate the life of a prenatal child as “courageous” (as Romney did, referring to his own mother’s pro-abort on demand position as a U.S. Senate candidate).
All you Romney apologists: have at it trying to defend your guy’s indefensible record on abortion (and promoting the homosexual agenda and gun control), and trying to persuade us that at age 58 he finally “saw the light” and had an ever so sincere conversion to being a conservative (curiously timed to coincide with running for president)...
...but stop the repugnant resort to maligning and misrepresenting Ronald Reagan’s record when you find you can’t get the job done.
Badeye: “From what I can tell, those raising hell about a Romney nomination are doing so based on one issue, abortion.”
Then you haven’t been paying attention. Add to that his promotion of the homosexual agenda and gun control.
And all the slugfest aside, hope your trip to Gettysburg went well. (I believe it was you who was going.)
Here’s an audio link to the WBUR Radio report cited in Post 102:
http://realserver.bu.edu:8080/ramgen/w/b/wbur/wburnews/2005/me_1209_2.rm
Listen to Romney, in his own voice, explain that he believes in his “heart of hearts” that hospitals should be required to make the morning-after pill available. (Romney sycophants, of course, will object to the “distortion” of judging the governor based on his own words.)
Notably, this “heart of hearts” moment for Romney came thirteen months AFTER the meeting with Harvard researchers in which he allegedly abandoned his previous support for abortion on demand and Roe.
Listen as well for the critical comment by a representative from Massachusetts Citizens for Life — notable because MCFL is one of the groups which signed that letter posted above about what a great conservative Mitt was.
Amazing the impact a $10,000 contribution from Romney had on that group’s assessment of his record.
With no apologies for that paper’s obviously left-wing views, as the New York Times nonetheless accurately reported:
“Conservative critics of Mr. Romney have already seized on a $15,000 donation to Massachusetts Citizens for Life...to argue that he is trying to buy the group’s support, or at least silence its criticism. ...Massachusetts Citizens for Life was critical of Mr. Romney, who was then a supporter of abortion rights, during most of his tenure as governor. But over the past few months, its officials have issued favorable statements about his record on abortion issues.”
What the NY Times reported above is factually true, the paper’s left-wing slant notwithstanding. The truth of their report will of course be irrelevant to both (1) Romney sycophants and (2) those who would say it’s questionable that George Washington really was the first President of the United States, if the NY Times or the Boston Globe reported that he was.
Not fair, EV. You’re quoting sources other than the Boston Globe.
Heh...
Very interesting recording.
Tired of playing duck and cover, Red Girl offers a respite by posting a pretty picture of Mitt and Ann Romney.
I like video better, like the following 2002 TV interview in which past Planned Parenthood donor Ann assures pro-abort women that they have nothing to fear if her husband is elected, and Mitt himself offers an “unequivocal” pledge to protect “a woman’s right” to pay an abortionist to terminate the life of her prenatal child:
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo
Thanks, khnyny. The NewsMax article details Reagan’s record just as I characterized it. The headline, however, was certainly inaccurate.
I think the intent of the article was to show how candidate’s positions change depending upon political landscape. This applies across the board.
“In 1967, then-California Gov. Reagan signed a liberal abortion law legalizing the procedure in cases where a woman’s mental as well as physical health was at risk.
The number of abortions in California soared after the bill was passed, and Reagan came to regret singing it, the Times reported. By the time he ran for president in 1980, Reagan had declared his support for a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions except to save the life of a woman.
During the 1980 campaign, Reagan’s GOP primary opponent, George H.W. Bush, opposed a constitutional amendment restricting abortion. But by the time he ran for president in 1988, then-Vice President Bush said he opposed all abortions unless the mother’s life was endangered.
Dick Gephardt, elected to the House from a heavily Catholic district, said in 1977: “By ruling … that a woman may legally have an abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, the Supreme Court has sanctioned the denial of the unborn’s rights.”
But in 1986, two years before running for president, Gephardt said he opposed a constitutional amendment, the Times noted, and in 2003 he declared: “The sanctity of a woman’s right to control her own destiny is a moral force of its own.”
Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, opposing Gephardt for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, criticized Gephardt’s shift on abortion and other issues, and went on to win the nomination.
Similarly, Al Gore’s stance on abortion shifted to the left as he eyed the White House. In 1987, he stated: “During my 11 years in Congress, I have consistently opposed federal funding of abortions,” which he called “arguably the taking of a human life.”
By 2000, when Gore was running for president, he declared: “My position has changed. I strongly support a woman’s right to choose.”
I do not even have to read this article. I have seen of enough of that columnists garbage for one lifetime already.
Then don't.
Sorry EV, but I am beginning to think that you are some sort of a mental case after your repeatedly obsessive anti Mitt posts out here on FR.com.
I have lived in this state for my entire life and I say that Mitt Romney was a refreshing change from the prior Governors here. The current Governor is working on fast undoing the pattern of Romney’s term.
Not so? Please then, tell me how much better things are now since Mitt left the corner office.
You do not live here but you post as if you are familiar with every aspect of Romney’s Governorship.
Clearly you are not.
Mitt won the Governor’s office here because he acted like a politician 5 years ago. I do not believe that he is betraying his beliefs now that he is running for President at all.
Au contraire.
You can claim Joan Vennochi as your validating source if you like. That simply makes you appear to look even more ridiculous out here on a “conservative” site.
I simply posted an article about Mitt Romney, one that provides an interesting persective from the left...you know, the folks that Mitt swore undying fealty to, and has now abandoned in pursuit of greater power. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
Radix,
Why stop at calling EV a “mental case”? Why not resort to what’s typically the first refuge of Romney defenders: accuse EV of being an anti-Mormon bigot.
Since you haven’t read Joan’s column, I can tell you that it’s primarily comprised of quotations from Mitt Romney.
Such quotes — which have been widely quoted elsewhere and never refuted by Romney — do not become any less accurate just because in this case, it’s the Globe that’s quoting him.
A serious question: is it possible to have a discussion about Mitt Romney and his record of promoting abortion on demand, the homosexual agenda, and gun control...without resorting to name-calling and attacks on the character or mental state of those who aren’t persuaded by Mitt’s sudden conversion on a host of issues?
When you (apparently seriously) suggest EV may be a mental case just because he disagrees with your assessment of Romney and his record, just tells me that you apparently are not capable of, confident about, or comfortable defending your views. That’s understandable in light of the record, which is largely comprised — as was the Globe column — of Romney’s own words.
The irony about all of this is that both Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are in the same political boat when it comes to all of the social issues, and they are both also RINO’s from the northeast. Duncan Hunter IMHO is the closest to what a majority of conservatives truly want in a Presidential candidate, but he’s still not registering much in all of the major polls so far. I worry about the future of the U.S. with the possibility of socialism coming here very soon, and conservatives must truly stop this possibility from really happening.
Agreed.
Honestly, I’ve NEVER given Romney a second of thought as our candidate. He’s a blow-dried dyed in the wool RINO. I’m shocked he has ANY support on these boards.
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.