Romney Staffer: Romney's Always Been on the Side of Life
Let's hope that this is not the long-term strategy for camp Romney
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (131) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I am being told these days by numerous fence-sitters and Romney supporters that I should wait until Romney officially declares his candidacy before demanding a serious explanation for his absolute about face on abortion which came as he prepared for a Presidential run after he'd already been elected in Massachusetts after he spoke with his people about stem cells harvested from embryos. Let us wait and see, these people say, what Romney has to say when he hits the campaign trail. Fine. I'm willing to grant that, provisionally, although I don't know why we should expect a more compelling explanation than the one he gave at the time; namely, that he was uninformed about abortion, but as he studied the ESS issue with knowledgeable people, he came somehow to the conclusion that abortion was wrong.* I do hope, however, that we are going to get an explanation, and not merely bald-faced lies like this one which was uncovered by eyeon08:
More below...
The Romney team doesn't put much stock in such polls, saying that the governor will connect with religious voters because of his positions and his record.
"Most Americans, including those in South Carolina, are most concerned with a candidate's values and where they stand on issues," said Jared Young, spokesman for Romney's Commonwealth Political Action Committee.
"Gov. Romney has always stood on the side of life, he's been a fierce defender of the sanctity of marriage, and will continue to fight for those conservative principles. Gov. Romney is a person of faith, and that's important to most Americans. He leads by example with character and integrity, and has been married to the same woman for more than 30 years," said Young, who notes that he is a Southern Baptist and Bob Jones University graduate.
Now see there? Romney's already got his PAC which is doing campaign work in South Carolina. Surely, the folks in the Mitt campaign have caught on that this abortion issue is going to be a huge deal with evangelicals, and I'm nearly 100% certain that there's been some brainstorming as to how Mitt's many positions on this issue will be "framed." Apparently, the head of Mitt's operation in South Carolina somehow got the idea that the proper way to go about it was to lie through his teeth to any evangelical who came calling, unless you call this "always being on the side of life."
Now sure, this is a staffer, but it's a fairly high level staffer, speaking about an issue that he's surely been briefed about. If he hasn't, Mitt's organization is not really an "organization," even by a liberal definition of that word. So it's still plausible, of course, that Romney will go down to South Carolina and straighten this misunderstanding out. I hope so - but I wonder whether someone who said "I've never considered myself to be pro-choice" despite twice aggressively campaigining on a platform of legalized abortion (some people call that being pro-choice) might just think that he can say "I've always been on the side of life," and get away with that, too.
------------------------
* I have explained why this explanation is spectacularly unconvincing here.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | A Note To Our Readers — Comments (25) »
Romney Staffer: Romney's Always Been on the Side of Life 131 Comments (0 topical, 131 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Among several reasons I left the church was its take on abortion. They allow for health of mother (among other things). I spoke to my bishop about my concerns, and he explained that even the mental health of the mother (a loop hole big enough to drive a truck through) was justification. He also mentioned rape and incest. He pointed to church literature supporting the idea of pro-life, but with such exceptions. For me killing a baby is killing a baby.
I know and respect the idea that others may consider pro-life "with exceptions" to be a pro-life view. I'm only pointing out (in addition to Leon's point about Romney's camp being untruthful) that Mitt should come clean about his views on what pro-life means to him.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I was not aware that Mormons are not truly pro-life. Thank you for that information. Are you Catholic now?
The Mormon church's official position as posted on its website (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-201-10-201,00.h...) and reproduced below is as follows:
"Question:
What is the position of the Church on Abortion?
Answer:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.
The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:
• Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or
• A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or
• A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.
The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct.
The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion. "
The post above seems to imply that the life and health of the mother is in serious jeopardy exception is as expansive as it is in Roe v. Wade. However, as a life long Mormon I can tell you that I have never, not even once, heard of anyone falling within this exception. Different leaders in the church can interpret that exception differently, but almost everyone I have known believes that exception applies only if the woman is going to die or something close to it.
Abortion is considered an extremely serious sin. Members that have an abortion or pay for someone else to have an abortion can and are likely to be subject to church discipline (excommunication in many instances).
Although the Mormon church's position is as stated above, I believe that the instances where those exceptions come into play are extremely rare. The church has a very strong adoption program that they encourage almost every woman that has an unwanted pregnancy to use.
From my perspective, I believe that it is difficult to be a dedicated Mormon and be in favor of abortion. Because of this, I really believe that Mitt is pro-life. However, I also think he was saying what he thought he needed to say back in the 90s to get elected in Massachussets, which reflects poorly on him.
I basically agree with you ecept on two points:
There are some pro-choice Mormons albeit few. I know them personally. Chicago can be liberal place.
I would also add a friend of mine (LDS) had an abortion for her baby who's brain was developing outside of it's skull recently. I have no idea to what extent she was meeting with her church leaders.
The church is very strongly opposed to abortion and it should be noted that Romney personally advised women to not have abortions as a lay leader in the church. This would have much prior to his time as governor. There is no way he could have been a Bishop or Stake President had he thought been ok with women having abortions. If he had counseled one to have one, he could have been subject to excommunication.
Please take the opportunity to read about this and talk to a member of the LDS Church. You will find out abortion is almost non exisitant even given the exceptions above, (rape, incest, health of mother...which basically means mother is going to die.)
Health of the mother does not "basically mean the mother is going to die." That would be "life of the mother." Health also includes things like "she'll be totally bummed out if she can't kill this baby." As for rape, it's pretty easy to falsely claim that a few months after the fact as well. This is not much of an endorsement of Romney here.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If you notice the last line the LDS church doesn't endorse any political policy or law concerning abrtion, in either direction. This is due to the overall approach of political neutrality. The church's stance on abortion is for members across world (it's a world-wide church) not just for folks on Redstate.
I think the church trusts it's members to make the right choice on this issue. The first LDS president Joseph Smith replied to a question from a reporter on how the Mormon Society was so ordely, "I teach them correct principle and let them rule themselves." This isn't to imply that J.S. would been for legalized abrtion; rather that the LDS church is a religous body that very rarely tries to define social policy. It believes the strength of it's membership is due to a conscious choice of the members accepting the will of God and doing thei best to live by it.
The correct principle in this area is abortion is a sin (in other words against the will of God) but there are gray areas.
Therefore the LDS church teaches the correct principle and in areas where it is difficult to make a blanket statement such as rape, and health of the mother, it allows the mother to make a decision based on discussions with priesthood leaders, scripture and prayer.
Your hypothetical situation on "health of the mother" is very remote, and would not even apply since if that is the mothers frame of mind I doubt any teaching of the LDS church would have any bearing on her decision.
This is how abortion is handled it in the institution of LDS church which a highly different institution of the United States.
If he were running for President of the LDS church. He isn't. So the rarity of abortion within LDS has nothing to do with his position on abortion.
The fact remains that his LDS faith tells us absolutely nothing about his pro-life or pro-choice views on the issue. I just wish people would stop bringing up LDS as evidence that he is "really pro-life [this time]."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
This was only meant to explain the LDS position on abortion. It didn't have anything to do with Romney or his positions.
The guy I originally responded to was using Romney's LDS faith to buttress Romney's position on the issue.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
"I just wish people would stop bring up LDS as evidence that he is 'really pro-life [this time]'."
Zuiko, I am not trying to start an argument with you, but like it or not, the fact that he is LDS can be considered evidence of whether he is pro-life just like all the other "evidence" such as his previous and current statements of his positions, his previous and current actions in that regard, what others that know him personally say about him, etc. You may not give it much weight, but it is still evidence that should be considered. I do give it quite a bit of weight based on my experience (most LDS church members I know and have known are very pro-life; Harry Reid is one big notable exception, even though he claims he is personally pro-life), but not more though than his statements/actions in that regard.
The intent of my original post was not meant to be a plug for Romney. I just wanted to clarify that the exceptions in the church's official abortion policy aren't really, in practice, exceptions. Everyone reads the church's policy and assumes that "health of the mother" must be equivalent to how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. I can't think of anything further from the truth.
As for Romney, he seems to be the most conservative electable (i.e., this excludes everybody except McCain and Guiliani, sorry Newt and Brownback fans) candidate. I mean Guiliani hasn't even professed to have a conversion story on abortion. He is just flat out pro-choice (as well as believing in a bunch of other liberal philosophies). I would rather roll the dice with someone that at least says he is pro-life than remove all doubt and vote for the guy that is clearly pro-choice. On McCain, the issue is one of appointing judges (this is the only real way a president can affect abortion). His participation in the gang of 14 makes me believe that he is not going to fight for strict constructionists. Romney, on the other hand, appears to be very committed to putting in strict constructionists ever since the Massachussets Supreme Court dictated homosexual marriage in that state. This isn't a ringing endorsement of Romney, but I believe he is the GOP's best shot for a conservative president.
Your post seems to accuratly reflect what the (LDS) bishop told me. Thank you for reproducing it here.
I would agree with you on two points.
1) Romney's words reflect poorly on him, not his church.
2) I commend the Mormons (and Utah for that matter) for having a VERY low abortion rate. (In fact, I think Utah's is the lowest in the country).
Where I disagree is that I would not call the church's position a pure pro-life one.
Exceptions for rape or incest don't justify killing a child, and is a feel good excuse to kill a baby. And health of mother (mental health is the loophole liberals want) doesn't cut it either. Life of the mother is a soap opera scenario and doesn't exist in the medical realm.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Well if you would call a pure pro-life as no legal exceptions for abortion, by that definition no. But you wuld be hard pressed to say the church is pro-choice. They fit in the pro-life camp just fine.
But I personally think there are very few who would rather have there wife die than there un-born baby. I have actually known someone who had this decision to make, many years ago. It does happen, however rare.
1. First, I would be very interested in knowing the medical particulars of such a case. While I always hear the claim that it does happen, I never hear the medical justification. Several physicians I know (and obstetricians at that) mantain that whatever one thinks of abortion as a choice, it is never a medical procedure to save a mother's life. My medical background (while not in the same field) tells me that I can see situations where such a procedure may be a risk, but never one where it is advisable if the mother's life is threatened. (I am however familiar with the scenario being used to justify an abortion when the mother doesn't want to share with others why she really had the procedure. In such a case the medical staff can't contradict her story because of medical privacy rules. I'm NOT claiming this is the case with the person you refer to).
2. How many years ago? While I am open to discussion as to whether this may have been an unfortunate emergency procedure several years ago, it is certainly not the case today. While I am not an expert on the history of medicine (I do have a passing interest in military medical/surgical history), I still can not fathom what medical reasoning would go into such a decision even then.
3. I agree with and respect your argumentation that one can't call the LDS church pro-choice (even if it is not purely pro-life by my standard). The LDS church has a great record on keeping the numbers of abortions down among its members given the admirable emphasis it has on family and on "clean" living. As I've written elsewhere, the church and Mitt are two seperable entities and I wouldn't lump one with the other. Hatch and Reid, for example, demonstrate the differences. However, while I see the church's prophet, seer, revelator and president being comfortable with abortion because the mother was raped, I and many Christians have a hard time believeing that Christ Himself would state that if a woman is the victim of a rape or incest she should have a right to murder her child. Of course, rape and incest ("justifiable" because of the mental anguish of mother) is part of the "health" exceptions pro-choicers tout because it applies to anyone who claims being distraught at having to carry a baby to term.
But when Mitt claims that he is personaly against abortion (read "shield") but thinks others should have the choice he'll get the pro-choice label. The fact that he converted from pro-life to pro-choice (because of a back alley abortion story), then recently converted the other way makes pro-lifers like me nervous. Instead of trying to defend such flips (which makes it all sound even worse), supporters of Mitt's (like you) might consider a different approach.
The more you defend or try to justify what so many conservatives here are reacting to the worse it gets. Why not agree that you can see why his changes make us nervous instead of trying to deny them? Why not understand that comments like "You'll see" or "He'll get around to discussing this or that" makes us nervous? As both Leon and I have written, we WANT to like the guy. Rudy and McCain don't hack it. And stop being so defensive. We might buy in more easily if the tone wasn't "Everyone is out to get our guy". I've been trashed for commenting on how much I distrust Rudy and McCain too.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
The bishop I refered to was mormom.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Is it going to be like this for 2 years -- RedState editors viciously attacking Romney?
This being a predominantly pro-life community and all.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
So because a guy used to be pro-choice, but is now pro-life, and he explained it by saying he "got this issue wrong in the past," we at RedState should savage him continuously, because this is a pro-life commmunity?
Used to be pro-life, then was pro-choice for a while, then was pro-life again. With dramatic conversion stories for each of those changes. I don't think it is believable. That said, I haven't ruled the guy out and he would probably be my choice among the big 3.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
He was actually against killing babies before he was for it.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
and what leads you to believe that Romney would not be a pro-life advocate? Look at his time as governor of MA - he has been a continuous "culture of life" advocate, unashamed supporter of President Bush on life issues, vetoed the stem cell legislation, is constantly speaking and raising money for anti-abortion groups...what politicia with a change in 2008 is more articulate and persuasive on pro-life issues than Romney? That's the whole deal - who will be best at persuading others that respecting life is the way to go?
RedState editors normally try to be fair even when they disagree. Criticize Romney if you must, but be fair, as for example is
Were you running for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, how would you have explained to the voters of that extremely pro-choice state that you would veto any attempt by the legislature to expand access to abortion? If you were smart, I suggest that you would explain it as Mitt Romney did.
We need to listen to what Mr. Romney actually said. He wasn't talking about convenience abortions, but about abortions with extremely serious complications. Reasonable pro-life people can disagree in such cases -- and they can also change their minds. Be fair.
Romney, incidentally, has rather a more solid pro-life record than had one other notable governor who went on to become president: Ronald Reagan.
If you prefer Brownback or Giuliani or Gingrich or whomever, fine; but don't hold Romney to a different standard just because he isn't your guy. That isn't right. RedStaters don't act that way.
"If I was smart I would have said it the way Romney did".
Wrong buddy. I would have told the truth. If he had (either pro-life or pro-choice) we wouldn't be having the discussion today. If you want a guy who makes it up as he goes along to get votes then have at it.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Ideally, we spend the next year focusing on the 2007 races -- remember how we let 2005 slip us up? -- and then we spend all of the time thereafter savaging each of the candidates, especially Romney, McCain, and Giuliani.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
"Gov. Romney has always stood on the side of life."
Romney, as Governor, always stood on the side of life.
Not that you're interested in his actual record as an elected official.
I don't know everything he's ever done in his 4 years. He has stood on the side of life quite often in a hostile environment.
The guy in question was being asked about how Romney would play with evangelicals in the South, and he answered that they'd like him because of his positions - in this context, "Romney has always stood on the side of life" clearly means that he's always been pro-life. Do we need to rehash (again) the dozens of statements that are flatly inconsistent with that claim?
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
The guy, as Governor, has not, to my knowledge, furthered the pro-choice agenda in any way. He has, however, furthered the pro-life agenda to some extent, in hostile territory. Regardless of the slip-up by the spokesguy (assuming he was quoted correctly), does Romney get no credit for putting his veto pen where his mouth is?
That sometime around 2004 (for reasons that are surely coincidental. Right?) Romney started doing (or at least claiming) the pro-life thing. The point of this article is that we have been told to anticipate an explanation for this change of heart, not "What are you talking about? I've always been pro-life."
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
"What are you talking about? I've always been pro-life."
That kind of thing does work on the other side of the aisle, but I have my doubts about it working here. Rudy can learn a lot about how not to deal with his past problem positions from this.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Romney is probably one of the most persuasive and articulate major politicians on the pro-life issues. If he was full of crap like most politicians, the depth of his discussion would be talking points. Listen to the guy talk about about his pro-life standards and hopes, it's heart-felt, honest, and powerful. Isn't the whole point of inserting a pro-life President is getting one in there that has the ability to persuade Congress and Americans that pro-life is the sensible policy?
I can see your opposition if you believed Romney would suddenly shift to a pro-choice, anti-life position if elected President. But what on earth would lead you to conclude that? It seems a lot of Romney-bashing around here is missing the forest for the trees, and dumping on a guyk who is raising money for and advocating pro-life issues. Welcome and encourage the guy, don't punish him.
for Senate and Governor are irrelevant?
If so, why should we credit his campaign positions while running for president?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
What I'm saying is that what the guy DID two, three and four years ago has to carry more weight than what he SAID 12 years ago, unless you want it to be the other way around.
...about what his position 12 years ago was.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
I do not get why some on this blog take words over actions. Romney has been a pro-life governor in a pro-choice mecca.
Personally, I am beginning to wonder even if its necessary for a Presidential candidate to be pro-life considering the last three Republicans were pro-life and we still have abortion on demand. Even with the nomination of conservative jurists, the elimination of Roe is not certain.
Considering all that Romney has said in 94 and has done while governor, what to you would be an acceptable response from Romney?
I don't know. I'd be perfectly willing to buy his ESS story if it wasn't pretty much exactly the same story he told in 1994, with but a few particulars changed. Creativity has never been my strong suit, so I can't really just invent what a satisfactory response would be. But it would have to be good. And people keep telling me that if I just wait, it will come. So, I'm waiting.
And I'm hoping for a lot better than "I've always been pro-life."
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
People who say he has always been pro-life are misinformed. His abortion change actually the first thing I tell someone when I tell them about Romney.
"So, I'm waiting."
No, actually, you're not. Because you haven't gotten your answer fast enough, you rip the guy on the front page every time the opportunity presents itself. I don't know what it is, but it's not waiting.
These people do not accept the fact that someone can change their positions.
I do not understand why someone cannot change their views. Look at the Founding Fathers, only a few of them supported independence in 1775, but within a year they signed the Declaration of Independence. Talk about a significant change in a year. Look at President Bush's foreign policy objectives before and after 9/11. People change and if you cannot handle it, I am sorry for you.
changed his positions. I'm pretty sure that most of us are willing to live with a changed position, as long as the change is to our liking. I have no problem if a guy was pro-choice in 1994 and is pro-life today. I don't even much care if he changes because he's pandering for my vote.
What I object to strongly and loudly is to hold "Position A" change to "Position B", change back to "A", change back to "B" and then say or have your campaign staff toad say "He's always been a "B"." That is unacceptable. And FWIW, I don't care what "A" and "B" relate to, abortion, gun control, immigration, pick one, pick something else.
Certainly, actions speak louder than words. On the other hand, if Romney told the MA electorate that he was pro-choice to get elected, got elected and then acted in a pro-life way I would say that is dishonest even though I would approve of the outcome. I would also never support a politician who did that because I would have no confidence in his commitments in the next election.
Romney is going to have to personally address this issue in a very clear and simple way. After all, conservatives aren't all that smart and we need things explained simply. If he does that, QUICKLY, and does it well, he'll get a pass on this from most of us. If he waits, and/or doesn't explain this clearly and very well, he's toast.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
What he basically said to the people of Mass in '02 was that he was personally pro-life, but that he would not change the abortion laws in Mass in any way. It was basically a truce. Why would the people of Mass want a truce unless they were worried about Romney being TOO pro-life?
in the air about this that I don't much care "[w]hat he basicly said..." What I care about is Mitt addressing the issue directly HIMSELF. I've heard half a dozen renditions of this and I want Romney's summary of it.
For the record, I'm not opposed to Romney. I don't know all that much of substance about him, it's too early for me to chip people's names on my granite voting block. However, I do consider this a make-or-break issue, not so much on abortion, but on communication. We've spent the last six years, and have two more to look forward to, with a guy who either doesn't communicate or does a sloppy job half the time when he tries. Sometimes Bush is really good. I won't live thru another four to eight years of that. If Romney can't communicate, and quickly, very well on this issue, he's off my radar.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
What if he had said "Personaly I'm against rape, but I won't allow any laws that forbids it". Give me a break.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
If Romney isn't conservative enough then neither are Rudy or McCain. Romney is much more conservative then those two. I was a campaign staffer for Romney and wasn't sold at first. He did moderate for Masachusetts, but much less so than Rudy. I just did another post on Romney. People are underestimating his skills as a policitian. Romney's good. He'll run circles around the MSM and make people who ask stupid questions look stupid. He's smooth. He's articulate. He's everything that the left and the MSM hopes Obama will be, but Romney will make Obama look like a stuttering school boy. I'm supporting him because the Right needs another great communicator in the mold of Reagan. Rudy an McCain and Brownback can't compare to him on that level. Michael Steele is another one who can speak through the MSM clutter.
Why anyone should vote for the man. I mean, "he's a great politician" is more or less a backhanded compliment, and when applied to a person who is devoid of principles, it's a flat-out insult. Your entire comment was, "We should vote for him because he's smooth and dreamy."
That works for K-Lo - not so much for me.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
You are corrext. But being a smart and wise politician is very good attribute. Remeber presidents spend very little time on abortion but alot of time working with individual congressman and negotiating with other countries. They are also basically the official spokeperson for our country.
MArgret Thatcher's story of Regan's first meeting with Gorbechev says a lot. Regan gave up way too much in negotiations and Thatcher repremanded him.
A skilled politician is a must for any president if we want the US to remain on top. In some ways Bush succeeded in this in other ways he didn't.
Sorry I guess I am threadjacking.
At least insofar as this entire discussion is not a threadjack - because I'm really curious what the allure of Romney is. And it's this particular aspect of Romney that people keep bringing up - his electability, his charm, etc. And I guess that, if you're saying that one can use a talent like that to advantage, that's a point in Romney's favor.
However, my concern about Romney is this (and here I answer FirstState) - I have no idea what he intends to do with this skill. Romney may have principles, but at this point, I have no clue what they are. Thus far, I find quite a great deal to worry me in his approach to all sorts of issues, from abortion to affirmative action, and I see quite a lot of changed positions. That leads me to worry (no, I'm not sure), that he is an extremely talented politician with an amorphous set of goals that center primarily around his own election to positions of power. This, I believe, was the ultimate strength (and failure) of Bill Clinton.
At this point, I want Romney to explain to me (or his supporters) why I should support him on the basis of anything that he actually stands for.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
My Reasons:
1. The guy is hawkish on terror and will be tough in the war on terrorism.
2. He recognizes China as competition that we must deal with. Now specifics on that yet, but he brings it up constanty and at some point will be more specific.
3. Lower taxes, lower spending.
4. Whether you agree with the route, he is pro-life. He will have a tough time doing the flop after the flip. He vetoed the morning after pill something GW couldn't even do with his FDA antics.
5. He has always been against Gay Marriage since 1994. He testified strongly in front of congress for the FMA and will continue to do so.
6. The guy has no skeletons. No affairs, no list of misssing friends or a drunken past.
7. He is an intellectual giant. Double dgree from Harvard graduationg in the top of his class.
8. Health Care plan (I know you don't like leon I do though and so do a lot of others)
9. Is telegenic, which is important as superficial aa it is.
10. wiling to think out of the box o solve problems
11. A proven track record in buisness
12. done some great things while Governor.
You may not like everything here, but these are my reasons that I support him strongly. believe I am busy as it is, but I feel very strongly to put in a lot of time because personally no other candidate has it like he does, and I am positive he has what it takes. I know it sounds like a commercial, but it's what I think.
I will also add I have a very easy time comvincing people about Romney.
I'm certain that, once he actually becomes a candidate, he will give you reasons.
The allure for me starts with executive excellence, and the fact that most of his life was spent outside of government. I think if he were the political animal people try to make him out to be, he'd have either a) moved to Michigan or Utah to run; and b) started his career a whole lot earlier.
Also, it significantly amazes me that people who claim to be "family values" voters attack a guy with who best represents those values in his private life.
Also, for his entire career in public and private life, he has never left a situation in worse shape than he found it. Small companies, big companies, the Olympics, Massachusetts. Always better off after having Mitt Romney in charge.
Let's get a couple things straight - I disqualify Newt right off the bat because of this, and if Rudy weren't aleady disqualified because of his numerous objectionable stances on issues, he would be, too. But both Brownback and Huckabee could have the same thing said about their family lives, and I'm not aware of any skeletons that McCain has ever had.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
Brownback and Huckabee are equally upstanding in their private lives. That shouldn't detract from the statement about Romney.
As far as McCain goes, I've tried not to say anything negative about any of the candidates. (Some days are better than others.)
I find it interesting that nobody is attacking either Brownback for his love of amnesty or Huckabee for being a tax and spend big government conservative.
In my experience here at RS, Gov. Huckabee gets shouted down for that very reason. Tax hikes, 'obesity' intervetion, blah blah blah. Every time, almost.
And actually I called out Sen. Brownback on that just today, and it was here that that fact was pointed out to me.
So what are you talking about?
--
Run like Reagan!
Sorry I missed that. I have posted on Huckabee once or twice.
As being more of a fiscal conservative, I can live a little more with Brownback's problems.
He'd probably get shouted down a lot more. Since he supported comprehensive immigration reform, however, in the form of a bill which I (unlike most "amnesty" criers) bothered to read - he doesn't take much except from the people who will only vote for Tom Tancredo.
In other news, Huckabee would be an absolutely terrible candidate. I've just noticed that he's been doing a decent job of fundraising, so it may be time to point out yet again all the ways in which he is terrible.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
Since it happens every time either one of them is brought up by somebody as "the guy" for 2008.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
reading enough. Somebody tossed out Huckabee's name a couple of weeks ago and got totally pounded on his tax increases and the level of spending in AR. I don't remember who put up the blog, but it was pretty ugly.
Brownback has been slammed on his immigration position every time his name is tossed up as a potential candidate. Leon has been very busy defending him on that one. I think there's been some discussion about his position on abortion, but I could be wrong on that one.
Mitt takes more hits simply because he's got more people who support him and you guys talk about him a lot. You force the conversation (not a bad thing) and people who have issues respond.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
if you're going to drag Romney through the mud for his past differences on life then you can't give McCain a free ride for his past problems with family values.
Yes, McCain's gotten a virtual free pass on the front page of this blog.
This is the first I've known of McCain's divorce.
There's a fundamental difference between divorce and adultery, in a lot of ways, though.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
"McCain has acknowledged engaging in extramarital affairs upon returning from Vietnam. While he was in Vietnam, his wife Carol had been severely injured in a car accident. Upon returning home in 1973, McCain found his wife to be very different from when he had married her. He soon began engaging in extramarital affairs and in 1979, he met Cindy Hensley. A year later, McCain sought a divorce from Carol and a month after that, he married Cindy."
From wikipedia.
That just lowered my estimation of McCain a lot.
Which is bad, since I couldn't stand him even before reading that.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
a couple of other issues. He was part of the Keating 5 but managed to grovel his way out a Senate ethics crucifixion. That episode was the incubator for CFR.
Several years ago his current wife was nabbed for abusing prescription drugs. As I remember (and I could be wrong) she was stealing drugs and scripts from a place where she was doing volunteer work. She went into rehab, the issue went away.
In both of these, as well as his divorce, I think the concern should be that McCain will pop his cork if he gets hammered with this stuff. And he will.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I don't support McCain (as everyone here knows). But I think his wife's prescription drug problem should be out of bounds in serious discourse.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
McCain may not have any skeletons but he has serious values baggage. I know you are smarter than to overlook those of his past.
people devoid of principles usually can't defend there ideas beyond simple talking points. romney is obviously deeply versed and has thought hard about these issues, and discusses them in a logical and systematic way so that makes perfect sense (contrary to about half of President Bush's discussions, unfortunately)
Any reasonably competent lawyer can argue both sides of an issue that they care less than nothing about with equal conviction and depth. It's not even all that hard.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
On a superficial talking-points level, sure, lawyers can argue both sides. But, it quickly becomes obvious during a conversation that they are full of it, as you see from most lawyer/politicians (I am a lawyer and the distinction is readily obvious). From what I've seen, Romney's pro-life foundation is a common thread throughout his conversations, woven in a way that only a passionate and honest believer could muster.
You may be suspicious of him in general, but if he is going to advocate pro-life in a way he does now and govern in a pro-life manner as he did in Massachusetts, what exactly is the problem with that? Isn't that what you want?
He's about as "passionate and honest" now as he was back in 1994 when he was talking about his pro-choice conversion and the fact that he almost lost some relative to a back-alley abortion.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Yea I find it hard to believe he is devoid of principles. No man has the character he has and lacks principles.
Why did he balance the state budget through cuts instead of raising taxes as anyone in MA would have done?
The guy's a freaking Morman. Whether you agreee or disagree with Mormanism, you can't call them devoid of principles. Romney is much more solid than Rudy or McCain. I live in Boston. He's shown ten times more backbone than Rudy in a ultra-hostile environment.
Why does it matter? We have Democrats with average NARAL ratings over 50% who are Mormons. Catholism takes a much harder line on SoCon issues like abortion, and look at all the Catholic Democrats with 100% NARAL ratings every year.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
It doesn't matter. I actually think it helps. I can't see how anybody can call Romney "devoid of principles". I've watched him closely. He moderated somewhat to win in Massachusetts, but anybody who takes any time to know the guy or his committment to his faith cannot call him "devoid of principles". That's laughable.
Too many Americans play cafeteria with their religions and their timeless principles.
Who would have thought that the Democrats would nominate a pro-abortion Catholic?
--
Run like Reagan!
who ran away while his pregnant girl friend drowned could:
1. get reelected.
2. take communion.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
do you have any positive ideas about 2008 or are you just out to get Romney?
Just wondering.
Oz
-- a very conservative evangelical, currently leaning toward Romney
I don't have a very good feeling about 2008 at all.
As you might have guessed (as I've said it numerous times on the front page), I'm a Brownback supporter.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
Doesn't that cloud every attack you've made on Romney? Brownback stands to gain the most from anything Romney loses.
I want you to go back to my very first Romney post and tell me what you see in the very first sentence. We'll continue this discussion (I have more to say) on your return.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
My point is not that you are less than honorable. Your allegiances are public. However, given the new emphasis on 2008 and people's allegiances -- public and private, paid and volunteer -- and the fact that your major, front page posts seem to consistently bash Romney, don't you see where people like me might question that?
Why not promote Brownback? The guy is fascinating in my opinion, and I think more people would support him if they knew more about him.
I just wanted to get that out of the way.
But the larger issue is that everyone is lining up right now for 2008 - some don't have any candidates, most do. In turn, we are all (supporting a candidate or not) examining the record of candidates and seeing what we find. I've also said publicly (and in that post) that I have the feeling that by the time the primaries roll around here to Tennessee, it may be a three-man race (Giuliani, McCain, Romney). I refuse to vote for Giuliani under any circumstances, and I can't stand McCain. I'd like to like Romney - really, I would. But the harder I look, the more questions that I uncover, and they're just not being answered.
P.S. I will write more about Brownback in the coming days.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
It's not as if Romney has been governing on Mars. Massachusetts is decent sized state with a viscous media and liber establishmet. He has a record:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1YvM18HmdA
And watch him smack down this liberal Boston Globe reporter (The reporter was mad because he cut tolls a "revenue stream":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-S9Ntek9QE
And this is the type of crap he's had to put up with in Mass (Their calling him bigot and shouting shame):
Personally I think Brownback is great. I've had a chance to meet him briefly, and can't think of any issue on which I disagree with him. I also think were he to win the nomination in 2008, he'd be destroyed. No, I don't have a crystal ball to tell me this, but I do know what the full-court press from the media towards the coronation of Hillary and/or Obama is going to look like, and I know it's going to take a truly exceptional candidate from the right to have a chance of countering it. Is Romney this candidate? I'm not sure, but I know of non-McCain people whose names have been mentioned, I certainly don't see any other contenders.
I'm sort of sensitive to the Romney abortion matter because I've only been pro-life myself for a couple of years. Also, I don't have an especially interesting story regarding my change of heart, nor do I have much of an excuse for having been pro-choice in the past. What I do know is that I am completely sincere, despite the fact that my past opinions on the matter would cause me to fail the purity test on the matter, just as Romney does.
I picture in my mind to what the feared Romney betrayal would look like. Since as far as I can tell, the only thing a president can actually do in regards to ending abortion is pick judges, it would come in the form of a judicial appointment. So what would happen is President Mitt Romney, despite being a skilled politician and generally brilliant man, despite knowing he needs the support of his conservative (pro-life) base to govern, despite having witnessed the lessons of the Harriet Miers debacle, despite having pledged not to do so (note that this hasn't happened yet, but will sure as the sun will rise), goes out and finds a squishy judge to appoint to the Court.
I don't know about the rest of ya'll, but that seems a tall order for me to accept. I welcome anybody to point out something I'm missing here. I also state for the record I have no affiliation with any campaign, nor have I decided that Romney is 100% my man in 2008.
All this hate for Romney leads me to search for reasons why it exists so far out from 2008.
Is it the Mormonism that bothers you?
List of comments that are involved with any post criticizing Mitt Romney. Thanks for your contribution.
"Administrative Law is not for sissies." - Justice Antonin Scalia
Perhaps if you make arguments besides "Romney didn't clarify fast enough for you", then people will not have to interpret what you really mean. My post, BTW, was not really intended to accuse you of anything. I was simply trying to illustrate how shallow your argument was in this case. Actions speak louder than words, and Romneys actions are far more conservative than most candidates out there.
Try reading the post again and determine wehther the point (this time) is that Romney hasn't clarified fast eough.
And, if you think that a statewide campaign manager flatly lying about Romney's record is a "shallow" argument, that's fine. It is not, however, an excuse for you to bandy about accusations of religious bigotry (which is exactly what your post was).
------------
Fnord.
I mean, just because Leon and the rest have written story after story explaining exactly what their problem with Mitt Romney is, clearly that's all a sustained ruse to cover for their religious bigotry.
Give me a break. Learn to read. Give your fellow RSers the benefit of the doubt, that at least SOMETIMES they mean what they write.
--
Run like Reagan!
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Is it the Mormonism that bothers you?
Excellent summary of the point made in this story. Oh wait - it's not at all. Maybe your "search" should begin with reading the story, eh? FTR, it's only about a year until we find ourselves in primary season. I don't consider that "so far out from 2008."
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I was surprised to discover, based on your comment, that Leon didn't mention that Mitt is a Mormon.
Is there some "secret code" that I might have missed? I mean Leon is Catholic and we all know - as was noted in RedHot - that those sneaky Catholics have secret codes and stuff.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
For approximately the the 11,301st time on this blog, I am not Catholic.
Don't feel bad, mbecker. It's a very persistent error.
------------
Fnord.
Now they're going to say you hate Mormons AND Catholics. And Muslims. and probably Wiccans too.
You... you Republican!
--
Run like Reagan!
the code is SO secret that either you don't realize you're a Catholic or you know you are and the Pope has worked out some nefarious method of "deniability". Hah!
I'm probably going to have to let the guys over at "Loose Change" know about the secret code. They're getting pretty beaten up about the 911 conspiracies and they could use a new one.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Good work Leon!!
I have no dog in this fight. I don't know Romney and could care less about him. What I do know is the definition of hypocrisy. And it is the height of hypocrisy to call John Kerry "the flipper" (which he is) and yet at the same time promote Romney as the second coming of Reagan.
I honestly don't know how some of the posters on here can justify their defense of Romney. The guy was pro-abortion and far from a conservative his entire career- UNTIL he stopped running for Massachusetts jobs and just BEFORE he wanted to run for President.
We call that "pulling an Al Gore" in the reality based community. If you were against libs trying to act like conservatives- you should be against Romney trying to do the same thing.
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
You claim to have no dog, but here you claim that McCain is the most conservative of the three frontrunners. Justify that.
McCain is the most conservative of the three for the simple reason that Romney has been just about everything depending on when he said it and what audience was being addressed.
I don't support McCain but I don't think it takes very much imagination to peg him as the most conservative of the three candidates in question.
Clearly AFC is using 'conservative' to refer to a mainstream Republican bundle of policies, rather than a philosophy. Plus he gives weight equally to all votes, regardless of sponsorship or efforts to promote.
--
Run like Reagan!
Compare their records as elected officials, then justify it.
at several of Romney's supporters.
I'm really having a hard time understanding why they can't see that Mitt has had a number of positions on abortion and HE hasn't personally addressed those positions and his current position. Until he addresses the issue, it will just get bigger and more contentious. Neither his supporters nor his campaign staff (or whatever they are) are helping him.
Every candidate has issues they need to address. With McCain, he regularly gets taken over the coals for his stands on half a dozen things, just check out current blog on his leadership ability. Rudy gets popped now and then for his positions on abortion, gay issues and 2nd amendment stuff. Romney is getting no more heat than anyone else at this point, if it seems that way, it's because he is in the news more and there are more people here who seem to be willing to fight for him. Some of his supporters seem to take criticism of Mitt very personally.
When Romney addresses the issue and his positions on it, one of two things will happen. Either it will cease to be an issue here - which will make it a big issue out there - or he will waffle and mumble and then people here will begin to pile on. Count me in that group. I've withheld criticism of his positions, not his silence, because I want to know if he can communicate. If he can't or won't, I'm done with him. If he communicates clearly, I'll consider him.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
just last week they were crowing about Romney's genius in not commenting on the ISG report because he was in China, a nation notably devoid of computers and cell phones, then when he did respond a week after its release (and some would say after he'd had time to stick a wetted finger in the air) they were crowing about the genius of his response.
I suspect we will have to wait until he sees he has to clarify the multitude of positions he's held on issues of importance to social conservatives before we hear anything and if we don't keep the pressure on him we'll never get an answer.
I think Romney gave a good response for the ISG. I think no matter what he may have done you would have complained.
for taking time to respond is that apparently we are supposed to take this guy seriously as a presidential contender and if that is the case he owed us a response at least concurrent with the Senate holding hearings on the ISG report.
And we are supposed to take him seriously, you and his other supporters should have had a enough respect for our intelligence to not claim some half-assed "trade mission" by a lame duck governor (the technical term is junket)was more important that the most important foreign policy issue facing the nation.
That is the good argument.
What Romney, or his staff, produced was a good response but it is part of a disturbing trend that we're seeing with your candidate which is that he seems to have a lot more in common with Bill Clinton than he does with any other political figure of the past 30 years.
I have no knowledge of the man or his private character, but his public positions remind one of nothing so much as a man with his wetted finger in the breeze and constantly calculating what he has to say to gain the maximum political benefit.
Now if your guy gets the nod in '08 you can count on my support, but right now I think your guy, and you, and the half dozen or so Romney supporters on this site are doing your man a grave disservice by pretending that this behavior is statesman-like or unnoticed or acceptable. It isn't and before the primary season starts you need to contemplate the damage you've done and are doing.
Your opinion noted.
But I don't think I ever made an excuse for him being in China, I would have to look back at the discussion. I think I mostly arguing that you were easy on Guiliani on this topic yet hard hitting on Romney.
It didn't seem that you cared that what Guiliani was not much, you just cared he said something. I guess I am fine with someone taking a couple extra days and saying something substantive.
I would also add that being away for awhile would slow you down if your staff is doing all sorts of stuff that is done on a trip. Especially if you didn't have huge intentions of making a big comment on this. Granted there is plenty of ways to communicate from China but the hours of the day aren't any longer there, and he doesn't travel with same size of staff as the president.
commented on the ISG report on either Friday or Monday. I provided the link to it.
And to reiterate the issue was Romney's failure to respond so not responding is a lot different from responding. As Giuliani had responded there was no reason to be tough on him and I devoted exactly as much time critiquing Giuliani's response as I did on Romney.
Giuliani was just as substantive as Romney if not as verbose and it had the added benefit of being in the news cycle for the story. To be honest, you were fine with whatever he did as were the rest of his supporters.
Go back an reread the thread. Romney being in China was the single biggest reason given for his non-response followed by "he's just a governor there's no reason he should respond."
your rihgt I was/am fine with it. That's no sin.
As are a lot of people who don't support Romney. I believe you can read it on the thread.
You did put words in my mouth by attributing what other supporters said to me. I don't speak for anyone else other than my own opinions. We don't collaborate on what the official Romney supporter opinion is.
Now we've received at least two emails from Romney supporters saying that the email writer and other Romney supporters on the site were upset at our innate hostility towards Romney.
And suddenly I'm supposed to believe that there is no collaboration between Romney supporters on this site on positions. Let's see. We get together and snivel about the harsh environment but in all our commisteration we never discuss politics.
What is it with you guys that you insist on insulting the intelligence of the rest of us? For criminy's sake, even if it were true don't you think it sounds like crap?
I don't know about other emails.
I have written two emails to Erik concerning this.
1. Complasined about you making cheap chiding shots but banning someone (me) when they took you to task.
2. Wanting to understand what the nature of the "press release rule" since it seemed vague.
I am sorry, I sit her and discuss with anyone else on this site what to say about Romney, anymore than the anti-Romney editors sit and talk about what the next thing is to post on Romney.
I think this conversation has turned a little personal.
Gov. Romney: The members of the Iraq Study Group deserve credit for their hard work. But their recommendations read like the product of a flawed process — one more focused on reaching consensus for the sake of reaching consensus. There were a few recommendations that I found especially striking: Suggesting that somehow the Israel-Palestine conflict is a root of sectarian and insurgent violence in Iraq is just wrong. Sunnis are killing Shia and vice versa. Pressuring Israel won’t change that.
Proposing that we negotiate with terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran — without a rigorous analysis of how our incentives could ever be aligned — is just counter-productive. I have no quarrel with talking, especially if it yields valuable intelligence and insight about an adversary. But that’s a far cry from actually negotiating with Iran, which sponsors Hezbollah, has nuclear ambitions, and has been clear in its intention to wipe our ally Israel off the map. And Syria is systematically undermining the sovereignty of Lebanon and funding and arming terrorists. Any suggestion that we might trade something for their help or forbearance is out of the question. When considering a negotiation, one must ask what kind of leverage we have, and recognize that there are situations where we have more to lose than gain by negotiating.
Finally, inferring that our troops may be withdrawn from combat positions before Iraq is secure runs counter to my view and to the views I have heard from some of America’s most accomplished military leaders. I am not suggesting that there are simple solutions for Iraq. But it is clear to me that some of these recommendations will not meet our objectives in Iraq, or in the broader long war America is fighting today.
I'm OK with this, but it took a week? Whatever.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Fine,
You don't like it took a week. Is it really a big deal? I think worse things have happened in US political history. Would it have really made any difference to the ISG debate had it shown up 5 days earlier?
I have no problem if people want to criticize his ISG ideas, if they want to criticize his abortion history or whatever. Fine lets talk about it, all you want. This just seemed kind of lame.
But now we are vearing off the original topic I guess.
and I've just read it, is that there's really not much in the way of substance in it.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
That's fine. I think he gave about as much opinion on a topic that you would expect from an unannounced presidential candidate. He said what he liked and didn't like.
I wouldn't expect him to roll out some policy initiatives on this idea considering all the circumstances. We still have a bit for a candidate to become so specific.
For whatever reason Streiff you have a problem with Romney. That is fine but what I find laughable is you shutting people's Redstate accounts down when they disagree with you. Is mine next? I have communicated with a couple of people that it has happened to. Shut em' down...
Beyond his coments concerning his abortion views he gave to K-Lo last week what kind of response would you like?
So, where did his campaign guy get his comment. And how in the world could he be "uninformed". That's curious to me. He's probably smarter than I am, so I'm pretty confused about that one.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Well his exact words were "Gov. Romney" in which case he is right. As Governor, Romney has always governed pro-life. As in vetoing the morning after pill and his stance on stemcell research. It is a vague statement.
I really am just saying how I would read it, I have no affiliation with the campaign other than having been to a couple events.
I didn't even think of reading of it that way, but if that's how it was meant, they really need to knock off the legalistic "depends on the meaning of the word is is" verbiage and be a little more transparent in what they are saying.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/g/c2fbaeda-8fd1-4973-8dd0-6b46c58d5e24
Dean Barnett, I didn't know this, worked for Romney's Senate run in 1994. He provides his thoughts on Romney from a guy who spend inside time with him.
I don't understand how a Mormon can be "uninformed" on abortion. Every Mormon I know is pro-life.
Perhaps he was just saying what the people of Massachusetts wanted to hear.
If that is the case, I don't want him to be president.