RedState Radio: Welcome Gov. Mitt Romney

By Erick Posted in Comments (53) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

We call Massachusetts the most liberal state commonwealth in the nation only because we call Vermont the only socialist state in the nation. Yet, in that dynamic, Massachusetts elected Mitt Romney as Governor and Romney is widely regarded as one of the front runners for the Republican nomination in 2008.

"I am a conservative. My conservative stripes have been won in the most liberal state in America. And my record is clear. Simply look at the vetoes of Democrat spending and the clear effort that I have led to hold on taxes and to fight for a lower rate of taxes. I think, as a nation, we have spent too much money and I am particularly concerned with Medicare Part D entitlement expansion. . . . The runaway growth of entitlement spending in addition to the earmarks and pork barrel spending threaten our economic future."

That's Mitt Romney talking to RedState. It's refreshing to hear a potential 2008 candidate for the GOP expressing his dismay over Medicare Part D.

Governor Romney and I had a very engaging conversation about his transition from a guy who really did not put life issues on his front burner to a guy who now considers himself pro-life. We also talked about how his Mormon faith might affect people's votes in 2008. Governor Romney also explained his healthcare initiative in Massachusetts that uses free market approaches and individual responsibility to drive down government healthcare costs and we talked about governing as a conservative in a very liberal state.

or listen here:

You can also download it here.


« RedState Radio: Senator Jim DeMint and the Senate Conservatives FundComments (1) | RedState Radio: Rep. Mike Pence, ConservativeComments (66) »
RedState Radio: Welcome Gov. Mitt Romney 53 Comments (0 topical, 53 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

but I still prefer Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. You don't always get what you want though.

you won't get what you want, since I like Romney's attitude toward illegal immigration much better than Pence's.

Romney is a finger in the wind RINO. Pence is the Leader of House Conservatives. No one is a better leader for conservatism than Mike Pence. Romney has NO core beliefs except that he should be President.

www.pence08.com

Is there any doubt that this guy should be the next President?

The "I have never considered myself to be pro-choice" set off just a few alarm bells.

The disingenuous lying about his pro-choice past is a bit much to swallow.

Conservatives need to wake up on this one.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Because saying he changed his position certainly means that he's trying to hide that he HELD another position. Please.

I remember a certain Republican President who is loved by all conservatives changed his position on abortion in a very dramatic fashion before he ran for President. In fact, he signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in history.

Romney has governed as a pro-life Republican while Reagan governed as a pro-choice Republican while Governor of California. Would have you voted against Reagan for that reason?

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

When did Reagan sit around for years claiming he supported the 'right to choose,' then turn around when it was convenient to claim that he was never 'pro-choice?'

The only double I see here is Romney's unfortunate duplicity.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I thought Romney said he never called himself pro-choice, I think there is a difference. But I can't listen to the interview because my desktop is screwed up.

Did Romney try and present himself as always pro-life?

Please quote that section for me please.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

What's the difference between supporting the 'right to choose' and being 'pro-choice'?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

And I don't claim to have Romney's answer, but I can tell you what I would think he meant.

I think (from reading others posting on this) that Romney would be making the point that although he has supported the Right of women to choose, he would not want the "Pro-Choice" label applied to him because it implies he is instep with the pro-choice movement which was far more liberal on the topic than Romney was when he was running for senator and governor.

There are many people who do not support legalized abortion but would not want to be put in the category of pro-life since many in the movement take the pro-life stance farther than they would by wanting to outlaw abortion in the case of Rape or the mothers health. But then there are some like me, who while may not want it to be illegal to have an abortion to save my wife are comfortable with the pro-life label.

Actually considering Bush's latest move with allowing over the counter abortives (aka the predator pill), and Romney's vetoing of them as governor, I think Romney has shown an ability to govern as an effective pro-lifer.

You may see this as spin, or giving him an earned break, but for me it makes sense. We probably just have a different perspective.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

You're right, there's a difference between being pro-choice and and against the prohibition of abortion. But Romney hasn't made this clear. He needs to state it himself.

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

--Thomas Jefferson

Maybe Romney should, but I was asked the question. That's why I answered it. I wouldn't call it an excuse, it's a plausible reason.

Did the interviewer follow up and ask Romney to explain himself?

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

fact that the the term "pro-choice" came to be the moniker of choice (no pun intended) for the pro-abortion lobby to obfuscate the fact that they are for abortions.

In other words, when Romney says he didn't consider himself pro-choice he really means that he was never pro-abortion, since that is really what the term has come to mean.

http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan

It's possible, but I find it highly unlikely, given that 'right to choose' is also code used by the same radical pro-abortion groups (we both know El Rushbo's apt term for them, right? heh)

I would think that anyone who shys from 'pro-choice' to avoid being aligned with them would avoid that smarmy 'woman's right to choose' bit, too.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I would think that anyone who shys from 'pro-choice' to avoid being aligned with them would avoid that smarmy 'woman's right to choose' bit, too.

You may not agree with someone's choices of labels, but you can hardly speak for every person who may support abortion's legalization.

With this in mind it has pretty much been shown he wasn't lying about his past in this interview. He was very open about it. I don't know why you and others would be so quick to put a label on the guy that is profooundly false. He never lied about his previous stances on abortion, only said he wasn't comfortable with the "pro-choice" label.

It's possible, but I find it highly unlikely, given that 'right to choose' is also code used by the same radical pro-abortion groups

"Right to choose" is used by a lot of people in a lot of ways, I would hardly call it code. I know it is fun to paint Roney as evil and sinister though, at least for some.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

Romney is telling the truth about his past stance on an issue. I doubt any of us can say we have went our entire life without changing a stance on one issue or another somewhat. Romney just changed the application of his stance. Reagan radically changed his view of abortion compared to Romney and it appears nobody really cared.

That the playing field today even closely resembles the playing field in 1980.

Even after they are elected there is a need to keep doubting.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

that the epiphany sounds a bit contrived.

However, I will say that his actions in office have been pro-life / pro-family.

He was very strongly supportive of the Catholic Charities during the whole gay adoption situation.

And frankly, I haven't seen anyone better than Romney yet (I like Newt, but there is a lot of baggage. Not to mention a Newt quote about getting away from social issues).

I have been a Romney supporter and I think that he sets the right tone on his religion. He does not make an attempt to say "Mormanism == Christianity." What he says is "My religion has many of the same values that this country was founded on."

That is the correct answer for working for the conservative evangleical vote. (and is dramatically different from Hatch's approach in 2000).

The last two editions of Redstate Radio (Pence and Romney) haven't made it onto iTunes for some reason. Since I like to listen to it on my iPod while on the way to class, this is kinda annoying. Could somebody look into this? Thanks.

Icythus

I really like the point he made about medicade, entitlement cliffs. It really is a disincentive to earning more money.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

I can't wait to listen to this interview later today, living as I do in the Commonwealth. The number of people in politics here who have their heads screwed on straight is smaller than is generally healthy for the state (and the country), and I don't expect to get much disagreement on that score from people here at RS. I'm looking forward to listening to Governor Romney and hearing yet another five star interview from RedState Radio. If it's as interesting as the billing suggests, it will probably influence my choice for Presidential nominee by quite a bit.

I've been watching governor Romney for about the last year and a half, and I must say that I am extermely impressed with him. It is always a joy to hear him speak or see him on Cspan. I look forward to more!

I just listened to the first part of Romney's interview paying close attention to what all the hub-bub was about. Did he lie and I missed it?

What I heard was that He didn't like to be called pro-choice. This seems to be the crux of the whole argument. Was there a distinction in his mind between what he said and what he thought pro-choice was I am not sure.

His claim though that he would not call himself pro-choice can only be legitimate. Now, what he saw as the distinction between his rhetoric and the label, I'm not sure. Does this make him a liar? I wouldn't think so.

The person asking the question knew what his stances were on abortion in the past Romney knew he knew since it was part of the question. So do you think he just forgot what the question was or was he trying to be apologetic and say that he always felt uncomfortable with the position he took?

I am not a single issue voter but abortion is an important one to me. Would I vote for Romney in the primary if he was like Reagan in every way but abortion? Probably not. He has changed his position on abortion and life issues and I am satisfied. If he gets elected and is not what he promises to be, I'll be the first in line calling for his head.

That said, I think he is a great candidate and it would be a mistake to destroy him over hair splitting on labels. Romney was ashamed in 2002 by the characterization of his old rhetoric. I say great.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

If he had said "I've changed my views" and meant it, that's fine. But instead he's quibbling about the label "pro-choice" when he's clearly been pro-choice/pro-abortion for years, and the label has fit, based on his public statements. He has no evidence of chaning that view, other than bristling over the label, now that he's facing GOP voters in GOP-dominated primary states.

Whether he's changed his mind on this issue is another matter, but we then need to consider WHY he's changing it now that he's seeking higher office.

Frankly, I take him at his word when he said in the 1994 and 2002 races that he's pro-abortion and wants it legal. No person rethinks things so completely in just a couple of years. It strains credulity. If he has changed, I hope he explains the moment of epiphany to us Republican voters.

I normally don't ask this question because I feel that it is kinda of insulting but after reading your comment I have to. Did you listen to the interview?

If he had said "I've changed my views" and meant it, that's fine.

I suppose your quibbling over the meant it part?

Frankly, I take him at his word when he said in the 1994 and 2002 races that he's pro-abortion and wants it legal.

That is the point he never said he was he was "pro-abortion". I suppose you don't want it legal for any cases?

That is kind of you to take him at his word 10 years ago. I guess you lost some of your trust over the last 10 years.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

He either was pro-choice then, and is lying now, or was pro-life then, and was lying then, or is pro-life now, and somewhere, sometime in the last 4 years (last 4 months?) changed his mind, but not didn't change his public position that he should do all in his power to make abortion freely available, which is an odd kind of "pro-life" viewpoint.

The truth is... well, he really hasn't shared the truth with us on this issue, just a lot of posturing.

Oh, and 2002 wasn't 10 years ago, BTW.

1) pro-choice or pro-life?

It is nice of you to make it so simple for me since I have trouble thinking on my own. He said he never claimed the label pro-choice. You can argue all day that his views he expressed were tantamount to pro-choice and you would be correct, but what you cannot in reason do is claim that he lied.

2) Changed his mind.

Again all I cans say is you must not have listened to the interview or read anything about his position on abortion in the last few years.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

I actually have read his words.

In the 2002 debate with Demo. Shannon O'Brien, he said, "Let me make this very clear: I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose." Is that pro-life?

A news article notes that, "after a relative died during an illegal abortion, and that the abortion made him see 'that regardless of one's beliefs about choice, you would hope it would be safe and legal.'" Is that pro-life?

Granted, he could say that he was *personally* pro-life, but worked hard to keep it legal, but I would be perplexed at that statement.

Let's try it another way with these hypotheticals (and no, I'm NOT accusing Romney of saying these things):

A candidate says: "I'm personally for the second amendment, but I'll fight hard to take away citizens' gun rights."

And a candidate says: "I'm personally against gay marriage, but I'll propose legislation to legalize it and have my state recognize it."

Now to Romney's beliefs, with him in effect saying: "I'm personally for protecting the unborn, but will work to keep laws on the books that ensure their continual destruction."

See? Useless hair-splitting, and frankly, some odd logic.

I will take back the "lying" comment if you prove he's never said that he's pro-life, after a career advocating legalized abortion on demand.

Be very skeptical of the convenient, self-serving comments -- like epiphanies about abortion after one no longer has to face re-election in Massachusetts, and before one runs in national primaries where being prolife is really, really important.

Statements against (perceived) interest are far more telling -- i.e., if he'd declared himself staunchly prolife before his last campaign in Massachusetts, or better, before his first.

but is not in itself proof the man is lying. It should cause us to give close scrutiny what he's done as governor, and what he says and does in the upcoming campaign, IMHO. As I've said all along, I'll feel a lot more comfortable with Mitt's pronouncements if he names names, and tells us that Luttig, Pryor, or Estrada will be his first SCOTUS pick should he be elected.
_______________________________________________
"Tradition is the democracy of the dead. It refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around"
-G.K. Chesterton

Romney has always been pro-life, he just made a political calculation that it wasn't what the people of MA wanted. We live in a democracy and that is a reasonable position to take.

TheSnakeGuy

This is about Gov. Romney's Presidential aspirations.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You guys are all haters. Even if Mr. Romney's stance on abortion is suspect, he's one of the better "thinkers" in our party and is a true star. Charismatic conservative candidates from the northeast are the key to our movements future. We cannot continue to lose moderate blue states and expect to stay in power. We NEED people who can actually SPEAK and explain our point of view.

so we can gain states? What is wrong with THAT picture?

"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"

Its very possible Republicans could pick up states if they tried. They have not tried since 1988 to win in the Northeast or even California. Reagan won these areas by significant margins and all of the sudden they become too liberal to win. I think its because we have had candidates who cannot explain themselves well. Reagan was able to communicate his views effectively where as Bush cannot communicate with any effect.

I have a riddle and a question: "I support the right of a woman to have an abortion. I want abortion to be legal and safe. I want abortion to be protected by the laws of my state. We should sustain and support Roe v. Wade. I will fight to keep abortion legal and available to all women. I support the abortion-inducing drug RU-486."

Now the question: Is the speaker "pro-life" or "pro-choice"?

Does he support abortion rights? If so, the clear definition is "pro-choice." And yet, Romney is talking about of both sides of his mouth, claiming to be *personally* pro-life, but completely happy with it remaining legal, and not only that, will FIGHT to keep it legal. This is the kind of "pro-life" politician NARAL must love: against abortion, but fighting actively to keep it legal and available on demand to every woman.

Romney has no right in the White House and Republicans will see right through this double-talker. We've dealt with a Liar-in-Chief before, and we'll deal with this guy, too.

So Romney's out for you, fine. Then who's your guy then?

Which other politician running in '08 is going to adhere to your view on abortion without any compromise? One that can get elected, not say Allen Keys or George "Macaca" Allen.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

The amount of garbage he takes from "Republicans" is remarkable. I'd have no problem supporting him. Why would you?

I would vote for him as my Senator, but for President no. Of course it would be a choice between DiFi and him, so that would be easy...;)

Anyone who could be that tone deaf, and make that intemperate a remark is lacking in my book. Sure he apologized, and apologized etc., but there was a certain favor to the comments besides the Malacca comment that left me cold for some reason. A lack of grace a lack of being civil, even to those that would do you harm, that's bothersome for some reason. Maybe it comes down to a lack of class.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

A lack of grace a lack of being civil, even to those that would do you harm, that's bothersome for some reason.

I've got to tell you, the one quality I'm looking for in a future GOP president, or any office for that matter, is a willingness to be uncivil to those who would do them harm. I'm sick of watching our people groveling like kicked dogs whenever anyone (on the other side) says a harsh word to them.

Being uncivil gets you what you have today, and it wan't always that way. I would remind you that Ronnie and Tip got along great on a personal level, but disagreed on just about every issue of the day. You never saw Ronnie getting all hot and bothered about what the other guys were saying, and that man had class.

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

It seems to me that all the Red State McCainiacs (save Adam C, if he counts as one) ever do is attack Mitt Romney these days.

And now here you are seeming to support Romney by doing the same thing in reverse. At least, I can't think of any other reason you want to know who 'his guy' is in this context, except so that you can change the subject by attacking instead of defending Romney.

Because there you are already, before he even answered, attacking Allen and Keyes, so impatient you are to change the subject.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

A nice lovely retort from you Neil, as usual the totally constipated sort, but of the usual kind to be expected of you. Can I recommend you add some more fiber to your diet, might helpful in restoring your disposition.

Actually, I don't know a thing about Romney, and am waiting to hear more about from him, Rudy and McCain in the future on the positions I care about like restoring fiscal discipline to the Federal Budget process, putting a lid on PORK spending, reforming Social Security and what to do in Iraq, post GW Bush. By the way, there's one heck of a Defense spending issue out in the weeds right now that nobody is taking about. The War in Iraq has been burning up our military hardware and it's going to cost a pretty penny to rebuild the gear we are burning up now.

Notice that I'm not waiting on hearing about positions on the burning Social Conservative issues of the day?

_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !

Actually my bowels are fine at the moment.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

There is no other "politician" running (or "thinking" of running) who I like. I think people need to consider whether they want another two-faced, lying politician who has two views on every issue, and trot one out depending on what group their speaking to, as Mitt seems to do.

I would urge folks to consider someone outside the career politician class this time, perhaps John Cox. http://www.cox2008.com

It's really time to send these jokers a message, not go with the "frontrunner" the media is pushing on us, like another Bush or another Clinton.

Ah this is why you tear down....

Cox has a lot of good things to say in his issues section. No one has even mentioned his name though till now. That puts him at a small disadvantage. He also has never won a race for anything if I read his bio right. That doesn't disqualify him in my book necessarily though, but he would really have to wow me in the debates.

I wish Cox was running for Governor. I like him much more than Topinka.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service