Answering the Mitt as Pro-Lifer Question
Is Mitt another WFB?
By Hunter Baker Posted in 2008 — Comments (29) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
William F. Buckley has come to the aid of Mitt Romney by pointing out that for a few minutes in the 1960's, he could have been characterized as being pro-choice. Quite true.
Is Mitt another WFB? Here's the question: Does anyone think that Mitt Romney would be pro-life today if he had chosen to run for a second term in Massachusetts rather than for the presidency?
If you know the answer to that question, then you know if he's really a pro-lifer.
END.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | OK, I admit it: I feel guilty. — Comments (4) »
Answering the Mitt as Pro-Lifer Question 29 Comments (0 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The question is moot. He didn't and couldn't run for another term in Massachusetts becasue he was pro-life and too conservative.
You may as well ask if Fred Thompson would still be moderate pro-choice if he ran in Massachusetts. It's a hypothetical situation. Mitt governed too conservatively to ever be taken seriously in Massachusetts for a second term.
By the way, the same thing happened to William Weld. After losing his Senate bid to John Kerry, he moved to New York. He had long term political goal for New York because he too knew he could never win in Massachusetts. That's how liberal Massachusetts is. New York looks like a moderate oasis.
Mr. Baker:
Your insinuation is absolutely correct! Mr. Romney is a complete opportunist. He was pro-choice while it was politically convenient, and is now anti-abortion for the same reason. Mr. Romney is a "true-blue" politician, and frankly I have no idea what he really thinks. He didn't run for Governor again not because he was "pro life and too conservative", but for the simple reason that, since he was going to run for president, Mr. Romney needed to change positions on social issues. If Mr. Romney had been involved in a re-election race for Mass. Governor, and had changed his position on social issues, he most certainly would have lost, and that would have killed his chances for becoming president. On the other hand, by not running for re-election, Mr. Romney could then change his position and say this somehow constituted some sincere change of mind.
Does anyone doubt this is the truth?
Did Fred change his mind and move to the right on abortion for opportunistic reasons.
Did Rudy change his mind and move to the middle on abortion for opportunistic reasons.
Did McCain change his mind and move to the right on taxes for opportunistic reasons.
Did Brownback change his mind and move to the right on immigration for opportunistic reasons.
I disagree with your premise. I've met Romney many times. I'll admit that he's a politician not a saint, but all politicians must compromise at some point. He is no more politcally calculating than any other candidate on the campaign trail. He is a devout family man and a devout man of faith. To keep trying to portray him as some rootless, empty man that has no sincere convictions or beleifs makes is bogus and makes his detractors look like scum.
I never suggested Romney is rootless, empty, or has no sincere beliefs. I'm quite sure he does. I merely imply that abortion is not one of the issues where he does have a core conviction.
First off, bringing up other candidates can be irrelevant at times. The "everybody else was doing it" argument doesn't work well with people. Point number 2, regardless of what any of the others mentioned believed in the past, they never went on national TV like Romney and make large promises, only to break them. The only time Thompson was questioned on TV he gave a non-commital answer, and never said he was in favor of upholding RvW. Romney made a big deal out of it during his campaign in 2002, and that is why he is having to pay for it now.
The other poster stated that Romney is a “true-blue” politician and that "I have no idea what he really thinks". This is a continuation of a theme. The implication being that Romney can never be trusted because he moved to the right on abortion. It’s stated over and over again that somehow he has no character or sincere convictions.
Look, I used to think Romney was too much of a prude. I disagree with him at times. But this being Massachusetts, I ended up being a captain on his 2002 gubernatorial run. Romney completely alienated himself from Massachusetts because of his fight against gay marriage and I assure you his motives were sincere. He lost his Democratic support in Massachusetts and then looked for alternatives to running for reelection. Not vice versa.
If you don’t like his positions or even his style, fine. But to take a guy that is so devout to his wife of 38 years and his five boys. To take the consummate family man, a guy who is so devout in his faith that he won’t even drink or swear and turn him into some waffling opportunist with no core convictions, values or beliefs is nothing more than character assassination. It’s wrong and it should stop. Those types of attacks and some of the anti-Mormon bigotry that exists makes the Republican Party look awful. It’s embarrassing.
I really resent your claim/insinuation that people like me that show Mr. Romney is a flip flopper somehow are therefore anti-Mormon. Nothing could be further from the truth. His religion is utterly irrelevant to me. Indeed, while it is true I'm Christian , I'm not a wild-eyed fundamentalist with some sort of animus towards to those not following my "flavor" of Christianity. If you must know, I'm Greek Orthodox, which is not branch of Christianity known for its intolerance of others.
I stand by my post that no one other than him or perhaps his wife have any idea what are Mr. Romney's real beliefs on abortion.
False. I never claimed or insinuated "that people like me that show Mr. Romney is a flip flopper somehow are therefore anti-Mormon." Read my post again. You are grossly misrepresenting what I wrote.
Please explain to me how he is "true blue". Unless you believe he is a complete fraud and liar, there is no justification for calling him "true blue". And if you think he is a complete fraud and a liar without any proof other than the fact that he moved to the right on a couple of issues, you are validating my point.
This is "true blue" Mitt in 1994, when he was supposedly so liberal, running on smaller government, welfare reform and illegal immigration:
http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_2.pdf
http://www.politico.com/pdf/wmr_1994_senate_flier_side_1.pdf
Romney completely alienated himself from Massachusetts because of his fight against gay marriage and I assure you his motives were sincere. He lost his Democratic support in Massachusetts and then looked for alternatives to running for reelection. Not vice versa.
I don't think you've got the chronology right. I believe that Romney was already being touted as a possible presidential candidate before the fight over gay marriage in Massachusetts, and I'm certain he was already exploring a presidential run before his public "conversion" on the pro-life issue. He set his sights on higher office and then calculatedly changed his beliefs to position himself for the presidential race.
I have a tough time with that charge. When I attack Rudy for being pro-choice, nobody yelps about bigotry. When I go after Mitt, the anti-Mormon prejudice card gets thrown on the table.
I'm a New England Catholic, so when I made that statement, it's not out of personal interest. Rush Limbaugh called out his own callers for their anti-Morman biases. Mark Levin did the same. Posters on this site have been kicked off for some anti-Morman rants. When has the last time Rudy had to deal with an anti-Cathlic heckler like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGct7N86mrY
This is Romney at a campaign stop in Florida. This is not anecdotal. This stuff occurs routinely.
I don't know what Mitt Romney might have done if he decided to stay in MA and run for a second gubernatorial term. The cynic in me says that he would have "gone with the flow" in that instance -- but he didn't.
In the same vein, I know that if I had stayed in Chicago and not pre-divorced myself from my feminist, psychologist, anorexic, bulimic ballet dancer of a girlfriend, I would *absolutely* be pro-choice today. I used to walk around handing out leaflets for NOW.
I was young and stupid and pu**y-whipped as a big nerd from high school who never had a steady girlfriend until this incredibly beautiful activist chick decided that I was the greatest vehicle for getting her Psy.D. since the invention of the pencil.
But I changed my mind and left, and recognized the errors of my ways, and I think that's what Mitt Romney has done. End of debate for me, unless someone has conclusive evidence from his diary about how Romney thinks he's duping all the rubes.
I have to say that making that decision was the hardest thing that I have ever done and probably the toughest thing I ever will do. But I decided that I was going to change my way of thinking and I knew that it was going to be the most gut-wrenching task I ever undertook. I did it and became a Republican not because of 9/11, not because of her specifically, and not because of any other single factor, but because the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence became impossible to ignore any longer.
But make no mistake about it: if you are a sincere person who tries to believe in what they say and do what they purport to believe, changing your mind like that is probably the most difficult thing you can do as a human being. I don't mean to place myself on a pedestal, because I'm still a vacillator on a lot of things, and I'm occasionally not as honest with myself as I should be.
However: all that I need to underscore that I made the right decision in my moments of "weakness" is to look at what the alternative is, and that alternative is always 100 times worse. That always sits me straight up and makes me realize that although it was difficult, it was the right thing to do. Nothing in this life worthwhile is easy.
I hope that in his heart of hearts Mitt Romney has similarly made that decision. All that I can do now is listen to what he says, examine how he responds to questions (which I think are appropriate) and engage him honestly if I think he's being disingenuous.
is that Mitt similarly was “young and stupid and pu**y-whipped” until about the time he decided to run for president. But now he’s not.
Okay then, that makes it much easier to vote for him.
That Romney changed his mind and a lot of people here cannot accept that change isn't anything other than a ruse because of their loyalties to other candidates. I like Mitt Romney but I'm not "loyal" to him yet in the sense that I'm definitely going to vote for him. But nothing he's said so far in this campaign has really egregiously tripped my BS detector -- certainly less than the things Giuliani and/or McCain have said.
There are a lot of people who continue to scrutinize Romney's "change of mind" and assert that it was timed to coincide with his run for the Presidency rather than anything he actually believes. In other words, they're saying that he's just taking this position for reasons of political expediency.
But I don't think he is. I think he really changed his mind, and in the right direction. I'm comfortable with his explanations thus far. His statements now and his record going forward is going to be much more important than what he has said in the past. I guess there's very little that I can do to convince some people of that, but it happens to be what I think. Some people here believe that I'm being led down the primrose path because of that, but I don't think so.
I was talking about myself specifically but trying to emphasize that people can make decisions that seem correct at the time but that only in the fullness of time they come to realize were wrong.
I think Romney has always had an uneasy relationship with the abortion question and I'm very glad that as a Presidential candidate he feels more free to talk about his actual views on the subject than he did when he was Governor of the most liberal state in the country. I take that as a *positive* sign, not an indication of flaky flip-floppiness. If only more of our liberal mayors and governors would get themselves free of the shackles!
Wouldn't that be wonderful? I think it would.
Does anyone remember Reagan's regular obeisances to a Constitutional amendment to permit prayer in schools? Or was it an anti flag-burning amendment? Who cares--it was pure theater, since Reagan knew it was never going to happen, and was far too astute a politician to have wasted an iota of capital on the effort.
The only people who should care where Romney stands on abortion--as opposed to where he stands on judges who inflict embarassments like Roe on us--are those foolish enough to think abortion law ought to be a matter of federal concern, and gullible enough to believe any candidate for the presidency who says he or she's going to change the abortion status quo, other than by his or her judicial appointments.
please stop bringing up other politicians to use as examples. I am open minded enough to figure things out on my own, as I said above, and to use the "everybody else" is doing it argument makes you look as bad as those who attack.
Mitt exudes phoniness on every other issue too.
The comment that Romney "exudes phoniness on every other issue too" has far more heft than denouncing him for an opportunistic shift on abortion alone, which was the point of my observation about Reagan; I didn't mind Reagan's posturing over "prayer in school" because I knew there were issues over which he he'd fight, and be right. Romney seems no more of a panderer than most, but not a lot less of one than most, either.
Its real hard to put your finger on it but there is something about the guy I don't trust, and unfortunately it gets worse the more I see of him.
Now that might seem unfair, and he might be a great guy, but if I feel it then you can be sure that most of the swing voters feel it too, and that equates with unelectability to me.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
yes, if it were just a flip-flop on abortion i could look past it. but it's "golly, I like everything about America!" it's tax cuts for "saving" and "middle-class." it's govt-but-not-really healthcare. it's the hunting. it's talking a good game on Iraq/Iran but giving the default answer on "keep it on the table."
Mr. Romney is the Republican version of Hillary Clinton. Just like Senator Clinton, everything that comes out of Mr. Romney's mouth is "poll tested" to attract the most Republican primary voters. He is nothing more than a creature of campaign consultants. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Mr. Romney and Senator Clinton share the same polling company and political consultants . . .
If these two phonies are the nominees, I plan to vote Libertarian.
yes, if it were just a flip-flop on abortion i could look past it. but it's "golly, I like everything about America!"
So how does a person answer a question as stupid as "what do you hate about America"? (Keep in mind "too many democrats" isn't an acceptable answer)
"too many democrats" would be acceptable and funny, a la Reagan
or
"Politicians!"
"Taxes!"
"Left-wing journalists like you, Chris!"
"Truthers"
"A flawed education system"
etc
but Romney is so over-produced, as Malaka said above, that he couldn't give an honest answer. if there's nothing he dislikes about America then he's not fit to run for office
The word was "hate" not dislike. Don't water it down. Hate is a strong word for a practicing christian. I'm sure Romney prepared for a question about hating America. That's why he started his answer by saying he waas at a loss for words. And most pundits thought he knocked that question out of the park.
Perhaps there is a political calulation here, but the causality runs the other way. I.e., perhaps Romney's evolving feelings about enforcing the pro-life position were one of the factors that helped him to decide to run for President rather than for re-election as Governor. (I have read that different factions of his administration advocated both paths.)
Recall also that at the time he went public with his pro-life position, George Allen was still considered a front runner for 2008, and the current "opening for a true conservative" was not apparent.
At least, not what with WFB has been saying lately; one of my liberal friends has been beating me up with WFB's more recent writings saying things like 'the war is lost', etc.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community