Mitt Romney Says He's One of Us
'This fiscal conservative became a social conservative'
By Bluey Posted in 2008 | Featured Stories — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney just addressed House conservatives at the Heritage Foundation’s retreat in Baltimore, using the speech as an opportunity to attack Sen. Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Iran.
Romney was applauded just once during the speech -- when he said he managed to reduce the number of employees working for state government -- but members of Congress were quick to jump to their feet after the speech.
Read on...
Rep. Tom Feeney, a major Romney supporter, introduced him to the group of conservatives, whom Feeney referred to as the “revolutionaries in Congress” in the context of the Founding Fathers from Massachusetts.
He said of Romney: “At a time when we are concerned about ethics in Washington, we have a man before us who saved the Olympics from an ethics scandal.”
Romney’s speech began with a focus on domestic issues and concluded with harsh rhetoric about jihadists and Iran.
Romney called himself a “conservative Republican governor in the most liberal state in America” and noted the role the Heritage Foundation has played in Massachusetts (such as his healthcare plan). However, he was also quick to note that he was able to find “common ground” with liberals in the Bay State.
Romney said his tenure as governor taught him important lesson about social conservatism. “On the issue of life, this fiscal conservative became a social conservative,” he said.
He railed against government spending and said he wouldn’t be afraid to take on ideas traditionally dominated by Democrats -- education, the environment and healthcare.
The latter portion of the speech dealt with the threat posed by jihadists. Romney said he stood by his criticism of President Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq, but supported the surge in troops. He reserved his tougher criticism for Iran, calling for “economic and diplomatic isolation.”
That’s when he launched his attack on Hillary, who spoke about Iran last night at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee dinner in New York. He poked fun at Hillary’s desire to “understand” Iran.
“Someone who doesn’t understand hasn’t been paying attention,” Romney said. “Someone who wants to engage Iran shows a troubling timidity.”
Romney is planning a special question-and-answer session with bloggers and reporters once he’s done taking questions from members of Congress. I’ll have another report on that shortly.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Will Rudy Giuliani run for President as a Democrat? — Comments (62) »
Mitt Romney Says He's One of Us 32 Comments (0 topical, 32 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The answer to your initial question is no.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
The problem is not what Romney is saying now. It's what he's said and done in the past. The man has a demonstrated history of political opportunism.
http://www.buryingthepast.com/history.htm
The Mountain Meadows Massacre took place on September 11, 1857 about 40 miles southwest of Cedar City, Utah. This tragic event marks the worst massacre of Americans by other Americans in our history prior to the Oklahoma City bombing.
One hundred twenty men, woman, and children from Northwest Arkansas, known as the Fancher/Baker wagon train headed for California, were slaughtered by local Mormon settlers and their Indian allies on that fateful day.
The exact cause of this horrific deed has remained mysterious, contentious, and largely unresolved, especially to the descendants of the victims. It is thought that fear of a military invasion, revenge against anti-Mormon sentiments, and greed all played a role. Afterward, the close-knit Mormon society closed ranks to protect its guilty members and only one man was deemed the scapegoat, convicted, and executed for the massacre-John D. Lee.
This little-known story of one of the most despicable crimes in the American West, is told through the actual documented account of a four year old girl named Nancy Saphrona who survived the massacre. Interviews with noted historians and descendants of the 17 children whose young lives were spared, visits to eccentric family reunions, anthropologists analyzing bullet-riddled skulls, plus the reenactment of the wagon train battle and massacre, make this documentary a fascinating, early pioneer story.
The film explores issues of forgiveness, reconciliation, and religious intolerance with the descendants from all sides of this massacre.
"Burying the Past" discusses the involvement, cover-up, and responsibility of the Mormon Church for this horrific event.
What exactly does Mitt Romney have to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre? About as much as JFK had to do with the Spanish Inquisition I'd bet.
If you post anything like this again (blood libel), you're out of here.
Go back to Kos where this type of thing belongs.
Or even Hillary Rodham CLinton and the disappearance of Vincent FOster. Oops, that may be a wee bit more relevant than Mitt Romney and the 18th Century Mormon Massacre.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
before I voted against him.
I am puzzled that so many are willing to support Rudy as long as publicly states that he will appoint strict constructionist supreme court justices, or not restrict gun ownership any further, or _________ (fill in the blank with the host of things listed in the comments to the recent why I support Rudy thread), but so many are unwilling to support Romney when he has said those things. I especially don't understand why Rudy would be acceptable if all he did was say he would appoint constructionist judges while still having personal pro-choice views while Romney is unacceptable even though he has committed that he will appoint strict constructionist judges and that he is personally pro-life and has been since 2002?
I know that some may say that Romney is a political opportunist while Rudy is not. I can't see the difference except that Romney appears to have changed his mind on certain issues for a much longer time than Rudy, which I would think is a benefit to Romney. Rudy would seem to be every bit the political opportunist if he were to come out and say all of the things that so many wish he would say, but that are contrary to his past.
Romney was pro-abortion in 2002. He didn't have his "conversion" until 2004 and it wasn't public until 2005.
"Romney was pro-abortion in 2002."
Do you have a single reference from 2002 that quotes Romney saying he is pro-choice, or that shows where he lobbied for a bill that promoted abortion? Just one.
If those are the "facts", it shouldn't be hard to find.
"On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered 'yes' to the question, 'Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?' Romney also professed support for state funding of abortion services for low-income women, Rowland said."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/03/25/roe_v...
"'I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one,' Romney wrote in answer to a NARAL questionnaire during the [2002 gubernatorial] campaign. 'Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's.'"
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/07/03/clarity_...
"When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney told Planned Parenthood that he supported expanding access to the emergency contraception pill."
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/04/12/bill_see...
During the 2002 governor's race, Romney's campaign website stated, "As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not the government's."
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
Now, since I was kind enough to answer your question, I have one for you and any other Romney supporters--is there a single public statement or action by Romney showing a pro-life position before he was considering a run for president?
It's one thing to switch sides on the issue of abortion. I applaud Romney for his recent stance on life but unfortunatly his Pro Abortion past is posted all over the internet (YouTube, Digg, Etc..) and I must say, it's hard to forget that he was once for "protecting a woman's right to choose" . To hear about it is one thing but to view it on tape (clear as day) is another thing. He will not have my vote next year.
Mitt used to be a card carrying member of the Soros supported Republican Main Street Partnership. I visited their web site today and unlike John McCain, (Chafee award recipient), and George Pataki who are listed as members I do not see Mitt's name listed there now.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
'Beauty is Mitt, Mitt beauty' -- That is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
nice!
Mitt's probably still ahead for me, but we've only played the 1st inning.
It promises to be an excellent game...perhaps
a shutout. When the debates begin Mr Mitt will
be in full stride and nobody will be able to
touch him...Guiliani may offer some strong
verbal opposition but McCain is way too passive...
and then should M Romney reach the 9th inning
it will clearly be no contest...meek Defeatocrat
versus strong soon-to-be-president...
... opportunistic. Of course, all politicians are. I personally prefer Rudy, but I'm not really an "ideologically pure" social conservative, so Rudy's stance on gay rights doesn't bother me, and may actually be a plus. I disagree with Rudy in abortion and gun control, but I think his desire to win election and then win re-election will keep him from going too nuts on these issues. But the election is still more than a year away, so I might still change my mind.
how a 55 yr old devout mormon with 5 kids who's been married for 35 years all of a sudden becomse pro life and a social conservative.
LDS members, the few I've come into contact with, young and old, are uniformly pro life and socially conservative. Coming from that background and with his family background, it's hard to see how a brief meeting with a Harvard researcher, the contents of which said researcher has said Romney's distorted, was enough to effet so radical a change. I mean, ultrasound images, "silent scream" type videos, religious doctrine, abundant photographs, medical testimony, etc... all of which was readily acailable in Romney's adult years wasn't enough to sway him and he was still pro choice at age 47 in 1994 and age 55 in 2002*and had been for more than 30 years), but this brief meeting about stem cell research which is somewhat removed from the issue of abortion, did the trick? Seems a little curious.
I'd actually have more respect for him if he just came out and said "look, I was pro choice, but I'm running for President and the platform is pro life and the conservative base is pro life, so I've seen the light". At least that would be honest.
The only thing I can think of is that he is one of the few Mormons that has had a close family relative die from an illegal abortion. I would imagine that would be a really gut-wrenching experience. It wouldn't be enough to sway me to be pro-choice, but I could see how many others in the same situation could be swayed.
As for his conversion back to being pro-life, I think that it is sincere, but I think it would be nieve to believe that there wasn't some degree of political opportunism there.
Harry Reid is also LDS. Then of course there's hundreds of Catholic liberal Democrats with 100% NARAL ratings, and the Catholic church adopts a much harder line on abortion than I've been told (by LDS supporters of Romney) that LDS does. I'm not sure his faith provides much illumination as to what his view on abortion or anything else should be or really is. I'll still take him over McCain.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Harry Reid is fairly pro-life, his NARAL rating is 29%.
"I think the fence is least effective. But I'll build the god--d fence if they want it."--McCain
"I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected" --McCain
His average over the past 5 years is closer to 50%... NARAL gives out hundreds of goose eggs year after year to pro-lifers. Neither 29% or 50% makes him a pro-lifer, fairly or otherwise.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Even if you look as far back as the 1994 election, pro-choice groups were attacking Romney. There are a couple of great articles (linked at the site below) from 1994 that show Romney was hardly the Pro-Choice candidate the media and other campaigns (hint, hint McCain)are trying to portray him as.
-MR
http:/www.mittreport.com
Together, we can find the truth...
Pro-choice groups attacked him because they saw him, rightly as it turned out, as a political opportunist who would flip on them if expedient.
Mitt was previously in favor of the LEGALIZATION of abortion, but that doesn't mean he thought it was ETHICAL. He--as many liberal Mormons do--simply seemed to think that it, though being immoral, should not be limited by the government.
Yes, for all political purposes, this would still have make him pro-abortion, but it's a lot easier for me to see someone like that suddenly becoming pro-life than if it had been someone who always thought it was ethical.
Mitt was previously in favor of the LEGALIZATION of abortion, but that doesn't mean he thought it was ETHICAL. He--as many liberal Mormons do--simply seemed to think that it, though being immoral, should not be limited by the government.
Yes, for all political purposes, this would still have make him pro-abortion, but it's a lot easier for me to see someone like that suddenly becoming pro-life than if it had been someone who always thought it was ethical.
gonna vote for somebody who is part of that Jeffries cult. Remember...one of FBI's 10 most wanted for arranging child rape...ooops, I mean child marriages?
Dawn Dale is the founder of The Christian Heartbeat located at:
http://www.geocities.com/thechristianheartbeat/welcome.html
Dawn has degrees and experience in counseling and psychology. She is the author of "Dawn's early Light".
I am certainly no supporter (or friend for that matter) of LDS. I'm not wild about Romney. That said, the polygamist groups who claim to be "fundamentalist" LDS, have no connection with Romney. Your charge is outrageous, not able to be substantiated in any way and scurrilous.
A retraction and apology are warranted.
Trying to link Romney to fundamentalist LDS groups is like trying to link Jerry Falwell to Westboro Baptist Church because they both use the name "Baptist". Shame on you.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
I agree with mbecker.
This comment is clearly over the line for civil discussion.
You owe an apology to all the Mormons who read or post here for insulting them and calling their religion "that Jeffries cult."
(And you might also throw in an apology to all the Christians for posting such religiously bigoted nonsense while claiming to be one of them.)
Is Romney's "This fiscal conservative became a social conservative" clear cut enough?
I recall someone early on decrying his explanations (I think they felt he was in denial). So now that he's out of denial is it okay that he, like Reagan, changed his mind and is on our side now.