Posted on 10/29/2007 12:53:00 PM PDT by JRochelle
"I think being pro-life is more than saying you'll appoint strict constructionist judges," is what former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney told reporters last week. He was talking about former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, but he could just as well be talking about himself.
Romney, who for more than 35 years claimed to be avowedly pro-choice, and ran as such for the U.S. Senate and for the Bay State governorship, has been using his and his family's money to create a "pro-life" record.
Earlier this year, his wife, Ann, was given an award by a Massachusetts pro-life organization after Romney made what a source inside the group called a "sizable" donation. Ann Romney, like her husband, has been pro-choice most of her life.
Romney also has hired political consultants with pro-life records, the best example being James Bopp, a prominent conservative lawyer, who serves as a legal counsel for National Right to Life.
Bopp has carried Romney's pro-life message for months, and was front and center for the candidate during the Family Research Council's Value Voters Summit.
But Bopp is now facing the same kind questions that were raised by conservatives when respected conservatives like Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo supported the nomination of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers to a seat on the Supreme Court, when most conservatives were opposing the nomination.
Bopp is now in the eye of a storm after criticizing Sen. Sam Brownback for meeting with Giuliani, a meeting, sources say, that Giuliani asked for. Romney and Brownback had a scheduled meeting for this week, but it was abruptly canceled after Bopp's public criticism of Brownback, who ended his presidential run last week.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
That pretty much says it all...............
How can people be so easily fooled?
It’s sad...hopefully Christians will see through him.
Ed
Pro-lifers: "Excuse me, do you have any more candy corn?"
Bopp: "Sorry bud, we're all sold out. Hey, you want to vote for a flip-flopping phony snake oil salesman?"
At the end of the campaign, if either Rudy or Mitt is the nominee, the loser will be kicking himself.
If Rudy loses he will regret not becoming pro-life.
If Mitt loses he will regret becoming pro-life.
I’ll take John McCain any day over these two bozos.
And I can’t believe I just said that.
I do not even think Mitt will make it past the first three primaries before he drops out.
It should tell you something that the author of this hitpiece chose to remain anonymous.
I am an evangelical Christian. I'm a little confused about Romney. I know he's a Mormon but am not entirely sure what that means. I thought it meant respect for the sanctity of life. Someone told me that Mormons don't accept Christ as savior. Every Mormon I've ever met has been a good and disciplined person. Not sure what to make of him right now.
Mormons definitely do accept Jesus Christ as The Savior.
Actress Patricia Heaton has personally given $1.5 million to buy such machines. Bush has not proposed a penny towards them, even though they are proven very effective in reducing abortions. Why not? He controlled Congress for 4 years. He could have easily done so if the issue was close to his heart. Activists have been pushing hard for this for the past 7 years.
But is Bush a pro-life "failure"? Of course not. The most important factor is THE PEOPLE. We need to keep the pressure strong on whomever is president, and also on educating and rousing public opinion against the barbaric procedure, and in favor of 3D ultrasound persuasion.
All three of the GOP frontrunners have questions of trust surrounding abortion. We are going to have to give one of them our trust. We have no choice but to do so. Polls have shown that opinion is shifting in our favor. In the end all we can really insure is our own passion towards preserving the gift of God that is life.
Some Republicans insist that the only perfect candidate would be a clone of my Dad, Ronald Reagan. Aside from the fact that there is no such thing, it’s important to recognize that Ronald Reagan, as he often admitted, was anything but perfect.
One of the criticisms about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney focuses on his record concerning the abortion issue. We are told by the modern day Diogenes clones that he can’t be trusted to fight abortion because he once, more or less, supported a woman’s right to butcher her baby. It may come as a surprise to these purists, but Ronald Reagan once supported abortion too. Yet nobody ever questioned his strong pro-life credentials after his conversion to Republicanism. They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?
Romney’s record shows he should be totally acceptable to all conservatives, yet because of one dubious question concerning the validity of his conversion to the pro-life side, he is deemed unsuitable to carry the conservative banner.
__________________
Mitt Romney has been endorsed by Sen. Jim De Mint (S.C.). As Governor of the Mass. Peter Flaherty was appointed his Deputy Chief of Staff. Peter is one of the staunchest pro-life officials in America.
Bopp is endorsing a pro-choicer himself, and brownback was open to a meeting to discuss the same with a pro-choicer. I actually think switchback is on firmer ground, if only because no endorsement was made.
Gotta love the way these “influential pro-life conservatives” really live their faith. [sarc]
I’ve been a SOCIAL conservative longer then I’ve been a conservative. I have defended many of these “leaders” against the prejudiced members of the GOP that disdain Christians as much as the Democrats do.
but the corruption of some of these people makes me sick. Anyone trading favors/donations from these candidates in exchange for recommendations should be exposed to the people that listen to them thinking they have the pro-life cause close to heart. And ALL Christians should look sceptically at people they trust if they suggest support for someone who’s record belies trust.
last i checked reagan’s pro-life conversion didn’t come on the eve of deciding to run for president representing a majority pro-life Republican party after a couple years before defending his pro-choice positions.
I really don’t care what Mike or demint has to say on the subject. they can like or take the guy on faith. I don’t damn well care. I took G.W.B. on trust and got Miers almost shoved down my throat. i am NOT going to take a guy who ran as a Liberal pro-choicer a couple years ago and believe a word he says is sincere on this issue
There is a a 40% chance that Rudy will get the nomination, according to intrade odds. And over 50% chance that Hillary will win next year.
So about a 75% chance that we will NOT have a pro-life President in 2009!
Given those odds, Romney is looking like a much better alternative.
Last I checked, Hillary and Rudy were still pro-aborts, oh that is TODAY.
If the GOP is so solidly pro-life why is Rudy still in contention? And dont you think his nomination would be a very divisive thing?
“They accepted his sincerity. Why can’t they accept Mitt Romney’s?”
The key word here is “sincerity” and for
“say anything Mitt” there is no sincerity.
It should tell you something that the author of this hitpiece chose to remain anonymous.
***
The anonymous article seem to be very misleading!
Bopp, Top Social Conservative Supporter Of Romney, Lashes Out At Brownback For Pro-Rudy Comments
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/10/bopp.php
There are a lot of detractors out there quoting LDS scripture in an attempt to smear Romney. Don’t get caught up in it. Would you accept someone quoting the Torah to you as a smear on Lieberman, or Micheal Medved? Why isn’t Hillary under the microphone to affirm or deny Christ? And if she did confess her faith, would she then be pressed to publically confess her sins?
This line of character assassination is a game you can’t win, and all candidates should reject such questions as a threat to privacy and religious freedom.
Switchback was never going to endorse Romney. The attacks he made on Romney in debate and in that campaign literature in Iowa pretty much eliminates that option.
As for endorsing Giuliani, that would be stupid even for Switchback. He would lose all credibility with the hardcore social conservatives and gain nothing.
As for Bopp and Switchback and Romney in general, this is a total non-story. Switchback doesn’t have that much influence and never had that many people supporting him, even in Iowa.
They do, but they may not mean exactly the same thing as you do by the phrase. Their view of the atonement is a little different than that of most evangelicals.
They also have a different idea of who Jesus is; they don't believe in the Holy Trinity, for example.
It's a strange religion, but, frankly, I don't see why that should matter when it comes to voting for president. I don't see how their wierd theology is going to interfere with a Mormon's ability to be a good president. On moral issues, they're pretty much in complete agreement with most Christians. Thier bizarre theology has no relevance that I can see to any public policy question.
So, even though I'm not a Mormon, and I find some their beliefs absurd, I would not hesitate to vote for one, like Romney, who I thought would be a good president.
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.