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 ...
Have you read Joan Venochi before? You and she make strange bedfellows. :-)
Indeed they do. Just ‘google’ her.
I agree with you that the author most likely has the wrong motives, but facts are stubborn things. That is my point.
The Boston Globe taking someone to task on an “honesty problem”? Sounds like a pot and kettle story.
Thats exactly my point.
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Romney’s conversion is real and complete. What does it say about a man in politics that it takes him until he’s well into his fifties to make up his mind on a major matter of public policy? Does that seem like leadership?
Me neither. But I assure you that there will be an NHL franchise in Sheol before I will vote for Romney.
No problem, I feel the same way about McCain and the Paulie Girl.
Did Romney do ANYTHING to get elected? No I don't think so but he did pick his battles and the things he's being beat up over would have disqualified him for any consideration immediately in Mass. I do think he did plenty of good in Mass and it really is an uphill battle there. It's true that no one really knows what's in someone's heart and I can't condemn anyone for being distrustful. But having seen Romney in action for years I'll say this... I don't believe that Romney ever thought abortion was a great thing or actually supported it - he just knew he couldn't change that in Mass and tried to take it off the table. I see it similar to the same way Bush took it off the table in 2000 when he said you have to change people's hearts first.
Thus speaks the head fredhead, attacking Romney for being governor of a dim state. He was living in a dim state - kind of hard to be governor of Texas, for instance, when you are living in MA.
EV’s Fred on the other hand who was from a pub state now says he didn’t think CFR would turn out as it did. Why? There were certainly plenty of us screaming that it was an attack on the First Amendment at the time. Serious judgment problem there, Fred.
Well, aside from an attack on the First Amendment, the results were just more un-intended consequences (Fred was right about that). The political parties are weaker but the moonbat organizations like Moveon and Kos are much stronger.
Foaming and raging from EV will start in 5, 4, 3, ...
They, like you, have nothing better to do than to attack Mitt. You'd cuddle up with the New York Times too, if they took to regularly attacking Mr. Romney.
Extremist Muslims don't like Mitt either. Think they're just peachy now? :-)
I agree with you that the author most likely has the wrong motives, but facts are stubborn things. That is my point.
Its lost on me, because I don’t use a single issue ‘litmus test’ when picking a President. Its a tad more complicated.
Besides which, President’s don’t have the power to change the national view on abortion, let alone legislate it out of existence. If that was the case, Reagan would have done so in the 1980’s.
So in the real world, it simply doesn’t matter. You want it changed, you have to change congress to your viewpoint.
How’s that going?
Thanks for the post, great column.
That’s fine, but in fact, the evidence that his “conversion” is phony is overwhelming. He still supports destroying embryos, notwithstanding the language he uses to cloud that fact, and he still doesn’t support the fundamental American principle that all persons have a God-given and therefore unalienable right to life.
All I can say to you is this: If you have no strong convictions on any issue and just want a President with an “R”, then Mitt’s a ggod choice.
LOL...you really should check your premises before you bloviate to that extent. I’m not a Fred Thompson supporter, much less the “head fredhead.”
All I can say to you is this: If you have no strong convictions on any issue and just want a President with an “R”, then Mitt’s a ggod choice.
And I in return can only say this: You display why I don’t have patience with single issue voters.
You began by asking me to provide evidence of ‘factual errors in the article’...when I never made the assertion in the first place.
You’ve since become more insulting with each successive post, now claiming I ‘have no strong convictions’.
Thats as catagorically false as the first assertion you made up above, without anything to support it.
Now, ping a Romney support to play with, thats interested in debating somebody that makes things up, attributes them to a poster, and demands an explanation.
Bound by political expediency means no boundary at all.
Strip all your posts down to their essential message, and each one can be distilled to Romney's perfidy knows no bounds! (RPKNB!). In EV's world, all other candidates number among the angelic host, and are crowned with virtue. Romney alone is the embodiment of deceit, his each and every action and word only provide further proofs of his inquity.
You claim that your jeremiad against Romney is motivated only by love of conservative principle, but that doesn't wash. Where Romney has been conservative you give no credit. When other candidates stray from conservative principles, EV crickets chirp.
So if it isn't conservative principle that motivates EV's Romney animus, what is it?
Yeah, nice post. I see the usual `Rah-Rah Romney!’ suspects are here, defending the indefensible.
It reminds me of Giuliani supporters faced with responding to the concerns of actual conservatives that their guy was actually pro-gun control and pro-`choice’. As is Romney.
Of course the difference between Romney and Giuliani, Rudy doesn’t belong to a non-Christian, screw-ball religion, like Scientology or Unitarianism.
At least he’s not a Baptist . . .
If you were correct, this video from his 2002 gubernatorial debate would make him one of the world's most talented liars, then. Which is kind of the point, no matter how you slice it, or what you believe about his current veracity.
I didn’t mean that you have no strong convictions. You said you were undecided. I was just telling you what kind of person might like to choose him. Sorry I wasn’t clearer.
Yeah, I’ve seen it.
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.