Replies

Wasn't it you that said that a person's actual record is the paramount qualifier? But now you've quoted a bunch of things that Mitt Romney has SAID, not his actual record of governance - as it specifically relates to abortion - as Governor of Massachusetts. And even now you promised to reveal Mitt's actual record, yet all you could produce were cherry-picked quotes he may have made one time or another.

Looking at the list you provided of Mitt's pro-life record, I should note a few things:

It also is largely things Mitt has said, not what he has done (which you criticised my earlier post for). Pointing to what a man SAYS is just as much a part of his record as what he has voted for, unless you wish to argue that Mitt is two-faced enough to say one thing while simultaneously meaning something else - which I doubt you want to do.
Much of what you point to, like abstinance education, may be socially conservative, but isn't necessarily an abortion issue, which is what we're talking about. In other words, you're trying to deflect from the issue at hand.
Most importantly - and which actually helps to SUPPORT the belief that Mitt is a flip-flop who is pro-life just to win the nomination - all of the quotes and vetos you cite, except for the one about parental notification laws (which characterises only a "soft" pro-life position, at best) are from 2005 or after. Mitt only became pro-life in 2005, right about the time we began to hear that he was considering a run for the GOP nomination.

This explains the seemingly contradictory information coming out about Mitt's record. This is why Marie Sturgis could call Mitt an "abortion rights supporter" in 1995, but in 2007 she calls him a pro-life asset. This is why in early 2005, National Review looked back on Mitt's record and said he was a supporter of ESC research, but that he then later vetoed it in Massachusetts. It's because Mitt did an about-face on life issues in 2005. All your list does is CONFIRMS that Mitt is a flip-flop, and a potential Trojan Horse, on this issue.

So, now you're on the pro-radical gay agenda Log Cabin Republicans' side in opposing Mitt Romney due to the fact that Romney is AGAINST the gay agenda, opposes gay marriage, and is the only frontrunning candidate who has supported the Federal Marriage Amendment. Their very opposition to Mitt Romney, that you have cited, proves that Romney is against their agenda. Yet you're trying to attack Romney as if he was for their agenda. You're not making sense.

The reason I'm "not making sense" is because you missed the point entirely. I pointed out that an attack ad (from the Log Cabin "Republicans") said he was pro-choice, and a non-partisan review organisation AGREED. The fact that the ad comes from the LC"R"s is largely irrelevant - the content of the ad itself was truthfully marking Romney as pro-choice. Your attempt to cast me as some supporter of the radical gay agenda solely on the basis of this IS dishonest, and DOES make you a liar, or at least an exceedingly uninformed and ignorant person.

The fact of the matter is, simply, that Fred Thompson did NOT receive 100% pro-life records from the premiere pro-life organization in America.

Did you even bother to LOOK at the links I posted previously? They were to the actual scorecards from the NRTL Committee. The vote breakdowns are shown. Fred voted pro-life every single time. They just dinged him for voting for campaign finance reform each year. Get it through your thick skull - every single ABORTION vote on those scorecards was a pro-life vote by FDT, every single one.

So, because you don't agree with this prominent pro-life leader, you cast aspersions about his intelligence, call him stupid, or pretend to read his mind. You're trying to rationalize away this important and unsurpassed pro-life endorsement.

Tell you what - why don't you go back and reread what I wrote, and show me where I called Dr. Willke "stupid". Now he IS shilling for Mitt - anyone who's seen Mitt's record knows he was pro-choice until he suddenly became pro-life in 2005. If this fooled Dr. Willke, then shame on Dr. Willke.

You're making statements, basically calling me a liar, about this specific vote and the contents of the amendment on this and a previous thread, but you've just admitted that you don't know what you're talking about and have not actually looked at the Congressional Record to even know if the accusation you directed at me was remotely true. Verifiably false - that's what you called what I said about his vote on this amendment. Well, verify it then, or retract your accusation.

That's the point - I HAVE looked at the Congressional Record. I've looked at every bit of information about the votes and amendments to H.R. 2020, 104th Congress, 1st Session (1995) that I could find - and DID NOT FIND what you describe. The information you claim exists does not, in fact, seem to exist. If it does, then you need to show the rest of us where it is that you are getting the specific information that page 76, lines 10-17 was abortion related, and that Fred voting to remove it was a pro-choice vote. Until you do this, I have to assume that either you, or the source which you cut-and-pasted the claim from, are blowing smoke.

You keep saying that like it is true, or something. But all you can provide are a few things that he SAID, not his actual record that you keep SAYING is stridently pro-choice. Other people disagree with you on your interpretation of his record. People like pro-life leaders, pro-life organizations, etc.

Pro-life leaders and organisations thought Mitt was pro-choice before 2005. It is only NOW that they think he is pro-life. Why is that? It's because Mitt changed his position, seemingly overnight, when he began to seriously think about running for the GOP nomination, that's why.