Mitt Romney lies about abortion

Being pro-choice isn't just a label

By Ben Domenech Posted in Comments (311) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

"I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice."
-Mitt Romney in a 1994 Senatorial debate

"I respect and will fully protect a woman's right to choose. That choice is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government's."
-Mitt Romney in a 2002 GOP acceptance speech

"I've never called myself pro-choice."
-Mitt Romney in a 2006 Redstate interview

In his latest interview with RedState, Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney responds to a question about his abortion position by saying that he's never adopted the label "pro-choice."

That's all well and good. Mitt Romney wants to be called pro-life. I'd like to be the King of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat.

But let's not kid ourselves: there is no substantive difference between the position labeled "pro-choice," and declaring your support for "the right to choose." And that is something that Mitt Romney has done repeatedly over the course of his political career. To say otherwise is to tell a lie.

Read on...

Mitt Romney tries to justify his position in the interview by stating that he's always been personally opposed to abortion, but did not want to impose his personal views on the populace. Even if that's true, consider this: by Mitt Romney's definition, Ted Kennedy isn't pro-choice either.

What is more likely - that Mitt Romney, supporter of Roe v. Wade, longtime believer in a "woman's right to choose," a man who is described by Massachusetts pro-life activists as having "no relationship" with their community - suddenly realizes that embryonic life matters in a meeting within the past four years, mere months after stating otherwise, and that the position he has held publicly for his entire political career was in error?

Or that, realizing that as a national candidate, his views would place him on the fringes of the Republican base and his natural religious base, he undertakes small steps to assuage concerns in a politically calculated flipflop?

Did Mitt Romney lie to try and get elected in 1994? Did he lie to try to get elected in 2002? Or is he lying to try and get elected today?

Perhaps Mitt Romney truly has had a change of heart on the issue, subsequent to his most recent election. If so, we ought to welcome it. In fact, I hope that if this is the case, Romney will embrace his conversion on the issue honestly, and relate the philosophical reasons behind his original views and the views he holds today. One does not suddenly recognize the humanity of the embryo after a lifetime of promotion and support for abortion law.

But whatever the case is, don't try to change the past: Mitt Romney has always been a pro-choice politician, whether he called himself that or not. And trusting in a position change on such a fundamental issue that occurs at such a late date, when there is such an enormous political incentive to do so, is worth only as much credence as we are willing to give it.

Consider the facts, and judge for yourself.

---

Gubernatorial debate, 2002:

Gubernatorial candidates Shannon O'Brien and Mitt Romney sparred yesterday over who was the strongest abortion rights supporter by touting endorsements from abortion rights groups and challenging each other's records on the issue..."There isn't a dime of difference between Mitt Romney's position on choice and [NARAL-endorsed] Shannon O'Brien," said Kerry Healey, Romney's running mate. Lynn Grefe, director of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, applauded Romney's "commitment to family planning and protecting a woman's right to choose" in a letter on Wednesday.

National Review Editorial, 2004:

[A] quick look at the moderates who were featured at the convention or discussed as contenders for 2008 shows that they do not make up a bloc within the Republican party, let alone a powerful one. The issues on which they are out of step with the Republican mainstream vary from person to person. Mitt Romney has been pro-choice on abortion, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani are liberal on social issues generally, John McCain has been moving leftward on economic issues, George Pataki has taken liberal positions on all of the above, and Chuck Hagel has been less hawkish than most Republicans.

Supporting Roe v. Wade:

In 1994, Romney took on Senator Edward M. Kennedy, saying abortion should be "safe and legal." In his 2002 race for governor, he told the state Republican Party’s convention in his acceptance speech: "I respect and will fully protect a woman’s right to choose. That choice is a deeply personal one, and the women of our state should make it based on their beliefs, not mine and not the government’s." Romney also signed a Planned Parenthood questionnaire saying he supported "the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade."

Romney on stem cells, 2002:

"I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," [Romney] said, adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch."

From Romney's own 2002 website:

On Abortion Rights -- 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.

« Burn the WitchComments (18) | Will Sanford Hurt McCain in South Carolina?Comments (6) »
Mitt Romney lies about abortion 311 Comments (0 topical, 311 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

At least he'll stab you in the front.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

But he can't compete with the hair. That wonderful, perfect hair.

Yes, if hair were the only issue he would be the mane man.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

To don your flame suit

Save the planet, Kill yourself

I think that Mitt Romney must have misspoken. Everyone, including Mitt Romney, knows what his former statements were about abortion. If he changed his mind, then of course he used to have previous views before turning pro-life.

You are taking one sentence from a conversational interview and blowing it out of proportion. You should be ashamed for saying that he lied. That is such a harsh word, for what I believe was a verbal gaffe.

At least talk to him before blasting him on the front page of RedState for the whole day.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

Misspeaking is not one of Romney's flaws, my friend.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Why am I sceptical of any post by anyone whose membership is measured in hours?

See The World In HinzSight!

refusal to accept a politically correct double standard on race jokes....

Rooster survived thanks to Hens, Justme and c17wife

Cock-a-Doodle-do

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

Must be because I'd only registered about a month earlier (just checked) and was still settling in myself, heh.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

You should be ashamed for saying that he lied. That is such a harsh word, for what I believe was a verbal gaffe.

That's a bit Orwellian, don't you think? In Romneyite land does "verbal gaffe" now equal "lie"? If your man weren't such a pitiful candidate outside of the blogosphere I'd be worried about having to learn all the newspeak.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Your right. Romney sucks. That's why John McCain spends most of his time trying to one up him and views him as his main challenger.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

I can't believe all this information on Romney and where he stands concerning Life. Thank you so much for posting this information. It really lets me see his true colors.

I didn't know too much about Romney but always thought he was on the side of Life and in step with us values voters. I guess I was completely wrong. We really need to look past his articulate speech and likeable demeanor and focus on what he really believes, what his core principles are. If he is lying about protecting Life and our values I wonder what else he has conjured up to try to deceive the conservative base???

This is an incredible, well-documented post. Outstanding.

There isn't going to be any substantive moves on Roe v. Wade in either direction.

Mitt is still the man to reign in the spenders and fix soc.sec. as well as give new energy to healthcare changes.

I guess if guys like you don't push for it, our candidates and elected leaders won't give it.

Just do us a favor and not call yourself pro-life on any public level that matters.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

If you want to criticize the guy from the previous post, feel free, but the "you guys" points at those of us who are pro-Romney and frankly, just because you don't like Romney on life doesn't give you the right to paint me as not-pro-life.

Use a finer paint brush, please.

I've given thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of my time to get a pro-life president and Senate in place.

That Romney should not call himself pro-life, not that you should not call yourself pro-life.

If you abet a man who lies about his pro-choice past, and support that man over demonstrably more sincere pro-life candidates, then you're not substantively pro-life in the public realm in my book.

At least be honest about the public record of your man Romney.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Can you cite an example of Romney lying about his previous position on this issue?

Or are you just pretending that you listened to the interview?

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

....and that of your personal dignity, stop while you're behind.

Ben's post annihilates your silly contention.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

You have failed to come up with a single example of Romney evading this question.

It just makes you look dishonest.

Find me ONE example in the interview.

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

Unless you're being sarcastic or something.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

It is a detailed catalogue of information about what Romney's position WAS. But Romney has been open about that. (It would be hard not to, of course, in today's environment).

Romney says he has changed his mind. Ben doesn't believe him, which is his prerogative. Trevino seems not to understand the concept of people changing their minds.

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

That he has never been pro-choice, and merely clarified himself as pro-life in 2005 after being informed on embryonic stem cell research (which I think is a pretty flimsy argument for someone who's been politically involved his entire life).

However, Ben's post proves that he actually lied in the interview by providing quotes that prove that assertion is false.

Thank you, Ben, I would also highly recommend an old diary written by slim-jim which I saved as a bookmark titled "Mitt Romney & Abortion."

http://slimjim.redstate.com/story/2006/7/14/17504/3239

What a pity this Langley fellow can't figure out what it obvious to you and the rest of the sane folks.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

What he said was he's never CALLED himself pro-choice. Ben's post doesn't prove otherwise. That's why it's a hit piece.

I assume you read Ben's article, so I won't regurgitate quotes that so obviously refute your point, but I'll pose a question that might do further damage.

If someone ever wrote an article about you in a mass media and called you, oh lets say something extreme, an anti-semetic that feasts on dogs (a la Michael Steele), would you correct them?

When the Boston Globe is covering your political race, and states that you are something that you're not, or if your running mate says that there is no difference between yourself and your opponent (who happens to be an openly anti-semetic and a dog eater, and is quite proud of it too), would you say something along the lines of, "No, I'm actually not an anti-semetic and I have never eaten a dog before."?

So I'll say this, is it important that Romney has never said publicly (at least that's been documented) that he's pro-choice? When someone introduces you, do you have to repeat your name to the guest in order to verify you are who you say you are? No, you don't, not when it's right.

The argument that Romney said that he never called himself pro-choice, however acted and spoke like one, was said to be one by friends, family, and newspapers, so he's not lieing is B.S.*

* - I have never called myself a user of profanity, or any of its abbreviations, so when I say I never use profanity on RedState, I am saying the 100% truth.

I think that by saying he changed his position he admits he held the other position. It's not like he's saying "I've always been pro-life." He just never thought of himself as personally pro-choice. Maybe that's true. Maybe when he was saying those things in the 94 campaign, he deluded himself into thinking something that wasn't true.

Maybe I have the benefit of hearing him address this before in a more complete way and that is clouding my view on this. I don't think Romney is trying to pretend he did not say those things.

People will question his timing and that is fine. But, if you follow the way the man lives his life you will know that he walks the walk of a pro-family man. One wife. Five kids. Charity. Service.

The tone of this piece is unbecoming.

I did.

But I am leery of mind changing when it comes hand in hand with a bid for a presidential primary run in the GOP.

He may have had a heartfelt change of heart, I would like to see the details.

I can describe the entire proccess that moved me from pro choice to pro life-and it isn't just an "I changed my mind" general type story.

So I won't say his change of heart isn't real, but I am taking his change of heart with a pretty huge chunk of skepticism.

Romney says his epiphany occurred just two years ago, when discussing stem cell research with a pair of experts from Harvard.

“At one point, one of the two said, ‘this is not a moral issue because we kill the embryos at 14 days‚’ ”

Romney recalls. “And I looked over at Beth Myers, my chief of staff, and we both had exactly the same reaction, which is it just hit us hard.

“And as they walked out, I said, ‘Beth, we have cheapened the sanctity of life by virtue of the Roe v. Wade mentality.’ And from that point forward, I said to the people of Massachusetts, ‘I will continue to honor what I pledged to you, but I prefer to call myself pro-life.’ ”

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 just does.

It makes me wonder if he is just playing games to get my vote, rather than what he really believes.

I am curious, but how many speeches has he given regarding his epiphany within Massachussettes, also, I wonder how somebody who is pro life can still support pro abortion issues.

This is one of those things that I don't understand-this isn't something like guns or free trade, if you truly belief that abortion is wrong, I am not sure how you would continue to support, sign into law and keep the pro choice agenda.

It is a worldview thing. If your worldview says life is sacred, I think any promises to kill life get taken off the table.

Thats the point he never signed any pro-choice laws. He vetoed 4.

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

that he would not agree to expand pro-choice rights. He has spoken of this epiphany often the past 2 years.

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

has not been. In the interview he clearly said he had never been "pro-choice." What Ben has done is come up with bookoo examples of just the opposite. Like this for example:
http://web.archive.org/web/20021218005104/www.romneyhealey.com/issues/

Now you just can't square that with the idea that he's never been pro-choice. Reason, logic, common sense, and a basic understanding of English grammar and syntax all defy that interpretation.

Now listen, I don't have a problem with a pro-choice candidate running for president. I don't have a problem with a pro-life candidate who used to be pro-choice running. Under the right circumstances (i.e., if he's running against Hillary) I would vote for such a candidate. However, I do have a problem with a pro-? candidate, who won't tell the truth about his past.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Just an FYI: it's spelled "beaucoups", and pronounced "boe-COO".

It's the French equivalent of "a lot" or "big time", as in "Thanks a lot" or "I owe you big time". Americans use it for "a lot" or "very many/much".

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

for a Louisiana guy like myself to make that mistake. I had thought the word was just an American slang word, but I was wrong.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Just return the favor sometime.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Nice by Oz

Way to unite the so-cons, by saying that you and only you get to pick which candidates are pro-life.

Guess Reagan was a pro-choicer since he signed the first abortion bill. No, his next X number of years as a pro-lifer don't count.

Good logic, trevino.

Romney needs to run for some office as a pro-lifer and win and take action to earn the title. I suggest Senator or Governor of MA or MI. He could have run for re-election, but he didn't. He's won one election, and he won it as a pro-choice politician.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

We are but warriors for the working-day.

I don't decide who's pro-life. People decide that for themselves.

I, Ben, and the rest of us who aren't getting the vapors over the dashing boy-governor from Massachusetts merely apply ordinary standards of honesty to the situation.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

I, Ben, and the rest of us who aren't getting the vapors over the dashing boy-governor from Massachusetts merely apply ordinary standards of honesty to the situation.

I think it's time you get over yourself. I know you think your really great, but comments like these show a certain sense of high mindedness that hasn't been earned. I think most of us on here are honest people, even though we disagree.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

I made that comment before I read anything by you.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

I, Ben, and the rest of us who aren't getting the vapors over the dashing boy-governor from Massachusetts merely apply ordinary standards of honesty to the situation.

I think it's time you get over yourself. I know you think your really great, but comments like these show a certain sense of high mindedness that hasn't been earned. I think most of us on here are honest people, even though we disagree.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

... that means I'm not substantively pro-life, then? (Granted, wouldn't bother me, I use the Dennis Miller triangulation on the issue; I consider myself pro-choice, but anti-abortion.) That is a pretty broad brush to paint people with, and our discourse deserves better. The thing is, though, I don't see too many conservatives letting slide a judicial appointment by a Republican president who is demonstrably pro-Roe, and any efforts to be made by such would receive the Harriet Miers treatment. We all know that.

Even though abortion is a great winning issue for our side most of the time, we can't demogogue the issue within our own side, at the risk of sounding more and more like the shrillness of the moonbats. Just because the Democrats threw Casey Sr. under the bus for his pro-life stance at a national convention doesn't mean that we should do the same to pro-choicers in our ranks. We have way too many important issues in this country to worry about to let ourselves get sidetracked by one that the odds still aren't that good that we'll be able to do much of anything on it in the immediate future.

"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."

just about every poll on the issue shows those who identify as republicans consistently support at least some form of legal abortion at about 70% while those saying none at all consistently poll in the upper 20s. The numbers may move a few points back and forth in any given year, but not meaningfully.

My personal view is it does a party no good when a minority cuts down a viabale candidate who they agree with on most issues simply because of his stance on any one. This applies to 'the base' on the abortion issue as well as the Dems on various moonbat issues.

Romney doesn't do it for me, but I'm not going to run around dissing him either- I'll save that for the other party's candidate, tyvm.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

...republicans consistently support at least some form of legal abortion at about 70% while those saying none at all consistently poll in the upper 20s.

National polls that include Democrats all indicate that over 50% support restricting abortion on demand and want access to abortion restricted significantly. Even the last polls commissioned by that bastionne of conservatism, NARAL, showed that.

In order to get to the numbers you are quoting, you have to include as "supporters" people who favor allowing abortion in the case of rape or incest.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I consider myself pro-choice, but anti-abortion.

I respect more those with the spine to serve evil forthrightly.

That is a pretty broad brush to paint people with, and our discourse deserves better.

Not really.

The thing is, though, I don't see too many conservatives letting slide a judicial appointment by a Republican president who is demonstrably pro-Roe....

Are you forgetting already the quite substantive and shrill chorus of self-described conservatives who stood by The Leader during the Miers pick? Say, what's Hewitt up to these days? I think your counsel of peace of mind is premature.

Just because the Democrats threw Casey Sr. under the bus for his pro-life stance at a national convention doesn't mean that we should do the same to pro-choicers in our ranks.

That logic only holds if the issue has no moral quality. Which it does.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

... that means I'm not substantively pro-life, then? (Granted, wouldn't bother me, I use the Dennis Miller triangulation on the issue; I consider myself pro-choice, but anti-abortion.) That is a pretty broad brush to paint people with, and our discourse deserves better.

Why not just be pro-choice and argue for that position forthrightly? It's not a disgrace to be pro-choice. Lot's of people I like are pro-choice. Rudy, for one.

But to say you're pro-choice but anti-abortion? Well, I'm pro-free speech but anti-bullsh**.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

Mitt should run for Bennett's seat or Hatch's seat when they retire and help President Mike Pence enact fiscal discipline and market-based reforms to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and healthcare reform.

If Kerry is giving up his Senate seat to run for President, though . . .

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

When has Sen. Bennett been a leader on anything? If we replaced him with Romney, I think Romney would be a powerful and effective spokesman for free-market, fiscal conservative movement issues. I think he would be a very powerful Senator who could help the GOP shore up our western front where we are seeing some erosion.

I just meant it wouldn't be a net gain for the GOP - one Republican replacing another. Knocking off a Dem in MA or MI would strengthen control of the Senate.

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

Go back to Utah you stinking Mormon... you got to be kidding me. I hope you were joking.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

When Mitt was running the Salt Lake Olympics, there was considerable talk about him running for office...in Utah. I'm not the first to bring this up. He also has a tremendous base of support...in Utah.

What's wrong with suggesting that a candidate run to represent an area where he has a lot of support?

I can't think of any top tier candidates in Utah could either beat him or be a better senator from that state.

Romney is the executive type and I suspect he will retire from seeking election after 08 if not elected. After all he really is more of a business man.

If I miss judged your intention I apologize. My only excuse is I have been seeing a lot of, "I will never vote for a Mormon" around here.

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

I took you literally (below) when you said (above) "... stinking Mormon ...". I didn't realize you were mocking someone else in the thread.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

You may be justified anyway. What I said was a little inflammatory (ok a lot) and maybe I should have toned it down a little.
A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

I'm not that kind of person, but everytime I read that (and there's been some of that on this thread and on this site in general,) it disgusts me, too. So...I understand.

I still think that Mitt Romney could bring his executive experience to the senate and have a tremendous impact. Many governors go on to be senators. Granted, usually of the same state - but I don't think that he could win in Massachusetts. Michigan? Perhaps, but I think we have a pretty deep and resurgent field there. Just judging by the Utah congressional delegation, I think we're a bit weak there and Mitt would be a powerful voice on important issues from that state.

I mean...his ties to Utah are stronger than Hillary's ties to New York, that's for sure.

That was rude. By all means, disagree with their religion, and believe (as I do) following Mormon teachings will make you burn for eternity. But leave the pejoratives out of it.

--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.

first impression it gives. Just a friendly heads up. I had to read it several times before I understood that you were trying to sum up someone else's position, not yours.

In any case, I'm not sure it's justified even as a satire.

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

Yes, I miss the parent feature of the old red state. Before this thread became overwhelmed with comments though it was just below the original and made a little more sense. I apologize again if you took offense

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

The parent link made it a lot easier to avoid getting lost.

absentee

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

These ought to be our two greatest domestic priorities (the GWOT being the greatest foreign policy priority) and they happen to be two issues where Republicans are vulnerable. Romney to his credit is focusing on Medicare as well as rather than just Social Security reform which puts him light years ahead of most of the likely contenders in either party.

Also if he runs on reigning in spending and on his skills as an executive, it would help distance himself from Bush who is perceived (with some justification on the former) as being weak in those areas. It gives us a chance to elect another Republican as President while minimizing the “fatigue” that might lead voters to think it’s time for to put a Democrat in the White House (who would probably get at least one, maybe even two Supreme Court nominees).

As far as Roe goes, it’s not an issue that a President can do much about one way or the other. None of us know who the next Supreme Court nominees are going to be (who among us predicted Roberts and Alito in 2004?) and no one knows with any reasonable degree of certainty how a justice will vote on any particular issue. Unfortunately many people have convinced themselves that by focusing almost exclusively on this issue and subjecting candidates to these bizarre litmus tests (I particularly like the one about how McCain who has supported all of Bush’s judicial nominees would supposedly not nominate similar nominees because of some bizarre anti-Roe = anti-McCain-Feingold calculus).

IMO abortion politics has become little more than a bludgeon used to demonize candidates one doesn’t like by playing to the worst fears of the base.

Let's get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because Jack Bauer does not feel like carrying you.

1. A president can do a lot about Roe depending on what kind of justices he nominates.

2. The type of justices a president nominates is largely reflective of what type of person the president is, although some have admitted a few mistakes.

3. Roberts was a surprise, but Alito was always a front-runner.

4. McCain-Feingold and Roe are both clearly erroneous rulings. The difference between the two is that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional and Roe is extra-constitutional. The widely held and credible belief in the legal community is that if a justice is willing to uphold a ruling that is a direct assault on the constitution, it seems that the same justice would similarly have even less compulsion to overturn a ruling that is merely extra-constitutional. After all, it may not actually be in the constitution, but it isn't completely contradictory to it, either.

Any justice who would uphold a direct assault on the Constitution but strike down extra-constitutional precedence is clearly doing little more than flipping a coin in chambers.

Thus, what we are likely to get are justices who not only uphold McCain-Feingold under a president McCain (*shudders*) as well as previous liberal precedence, but ALSO (and this is the REALLY important part) participate in creating MORE extra-constitutional and unconstitutional precedence.

Roberts was a surprise, Alito was always on the "wish list," and both have proved to be absolutely stellar.

On Roberts, I have to say that Dubya actually outsmarted all of us. I truly believe that he will be remembered for ages as one of the most brilliant and influential justices since John Marshall once all is said and done. Additionally, I think that he will even rival Antonin Scalia in the hearts and minds of conservatives - not for what he says so much as Scalia - but for what he accomplishes.

Scalia's brilliant, scathing rhetoric and talent for turning a phrase that makes conservatives giddy will probably always outshine anything that Roberts delivers to us. But then, Roberts gives us the more sobering retorts such as, "it is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race."

1. A president can do a lot about Roe depending on what kind of justices he nominates.

And has been pointed out so often the past, it’s almost impossible to predict how a judge will vote on a particular issue. Reagan gave us Kennedy, O’Connor, and Scalia. Bush 41 gave us Souter and Thomas.

2. The type of justices a president nominates is largely reflective of what type of person the president is, although some have admitted a few mistakes.

Based on what? No self-respecting judge is going to pledge (and if s/he does, she violates the judicial canons) on how s/he will rule on an issue that might come before the court?

3. Roberts was a surprise, but Alito was always a front-runner.

Not really, Alito was Bush’s second choice after Meirs stepped down and up until he was announced most people were predicting Luttig or McConnell. Before that it was a question of which of the two Ediths would get picked. And before that it “anybody but Gonzales.”

And then we get to the most ridiculous argument thrown out by the McCain-haters:

4. McCain-Feingold and Roe are both clearly erroneous rulings. The difference between the two is that McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional and Roe is extra-constitutional. The widely held and credible belief in the legal community is that if a justice is willing to uphold a ruling that is a direct assault on the constitution, it seems that the same justice would similarly have even less compulsion to overturn a ruling that is merely extra-constitutional. After all, it may not actually be in the constitution, but it isn't completely contradictory to it, either.

Then under your logic, Chief Roberts and Justice Alito will both be pro-Roe votes because (a) John McCain supported them as he did all of Bush’s nominees and (b) they were appointed by a President who (in your words) signed into law McCain-Feingold which is supposedly a “direct assault on the constitution.” Under your logic we shouldn’t trust any of Bush’s nominees anymore than McCain’s because he’s just as culpable if not more so for McCain-Feingold.

Not for me, thanks. I won't vote for anyone who wants to do what he has done vis a vis healthcare...

Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans

If abortion sinks Mitt, why doesn't it sink Rudy?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

especially since Mitt at least is now saying (and has been acting as governor) as a pro-lifer.

And why doesn't it sink McCain for that matter since he's less likely to appoint strict constructionalists who might strike down his anti-Free Speech and hence be less likely to be pro-life.

I am not going to try to say Romney hasn't changed his mind here. He is being a politician with his words. Reagan changed his mind, too, but he was a friend to the pro-lifers.

There is no comparison between Rudy and Mitt's positions, and McCain's voting record. Except indirectly through CFR (which is the real reason to not support McCain), he is one of the most solid pro-life senators by voting record. But just because McCain is not a candidate to support does not mean he does everything wrong. On this issue he is one of the strongest. Go to NRLC and check the voting record.

. . . when it comes to the BCFR Act which most of us seem to loathe, it didn’t stop any of us from voting to reelect President Bush when he signed it into law after promising to veto it did it?

It seems to me that McCain, while I disagree with him on this issue, was upfront about what he wanted and why he wanted it. Bush caved in and did the wrong thing yet I and I others were able to forgive him for it and support his reelection in 2004.

In which case if I could support Bush in 2004 who signed the BCFR Act into law (after promising to veto it), I cannot very well then say it would prevent me from supporting McCain in 2008 for authoring the same piece of legislation. Unless one of the other candidates promises to try to repeal the legislation (fat chance), IMO we all need to recognize that this is pretty much a non-issue and judge the candidates on how the differ on the rest of their qualifications and on the issues.

Let's get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because Jack Bauer does not feel like carrying you.

...at best. McCain has been 100% pro-life from the beginning. Yes, he's terrible on campaign finance reform, but First Amendment policial free speech law is not as easily divided into liberals and conservatives as you think. It's audacious to say that McCain would not appoint strict constructionists without any more support than that.

I should have just agreed on Guiliani.

Although I still don't like the comparison since Romney has changed this position while Guiliani has not.

When he said he did not want to see Roe overturned. As far as constructionists go, they would throw out any of his attempts at legislating away the first Amendment. He isn't going to appoint anyone to SCOTUS that would interfere with one of his highest priorities. Anyone who would vote to uphold restrictions on political speech clearly doesn't care much about the constitution and would likely be able to find a right to abortion somewhere in the penumbra.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Rudy's got a lot of crap sinking him -- more than Romney, even. I'm not sure what world you're in wherein his pro-abortion position doesn't harm him in pro-life eyes.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Rudy has a lot of fans among mainstream Republicans, and it shows in numerous straw polls here at RS and elsewhere.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

....I just remembered a conversation I had in which a self-declared social conservative exhibited exactly the attitude you describe.

Those people are wrong.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

There is a strong spirit of wishful thinking. "He would be a strong executive, good fiscal policy, he was great on 9/11, he must agree with me on abortion." It is a leap made by many social conservatives, including many on this site, and it is not justified at all.

I don't think anyone believes he will change his position. It just so happens that being pro-choice on a LOCAL level can be exactly the same as bing in favor of appointing strict constructionist judges.

If you believe as I do that all such social legislation should be at the state level and the feds should butt out. I have heard Giuliani make similar statements. Now, he needs to elucidate his position more. But if he did pledge to appoint Scalia-Thomas type judges I would support him for his other qualities.

Romney seems to have the same baggage so why is he supported more by some social conservatives?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The difference is that the people who are firmly behind Rudy aren't behind him because of his stand on social issues - they're behind him because of his record of tremendous leadership. His attempt to placate the social conservatives has been his adoration of Roberts and Alito and his thus far successful attempts to hide behind federalism as a shield. Rudy would also be unquestionably solid on the Global War on Terror. He is the classical neocon's candidate.

That leaves social cons and fiscal, free-market cons looking for a candidate. Mitt may be able to shore up the fiscal free-market cons, but he's faltering on the social cons.

In the end the GOP needs a candidate who unites all of these factions, and if any candidate wins by only appealing to one of these, then he is going to be very weak going into the general election.

That's why we need Mike Pence. He unites every important GOP constituency.

with your unsupported claim that Romney is losing So-cons. He's not losing me and trust me, I'm about as So-con as it gets. He hasn't lost Jerry Falwell.

He hasn't lost most people who I talk to about it.

If you really believe in it. I remember a time when federalism was a big part of the Republican party.

On appointing judges and on fiscal matters I have to hear more from Giuliani before I give him my full support.

But that goes for any nominee. I especially want to hear that they are willing to veto legislation coming even from a Republican congress if it is filled with pork.

As for Pence, time will tell, as of now he has nearly no name recognition.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Hiding might have been the wrong word. It sounds disingenuous - which I do not yet know if it is - and that is not what I intended to imply at all.

If it ends up being one of the only areas where Rudy endorses strengthening federalism, then "hiding" may well fit. If, however, he advocates a strong and robust federalist society, then he will be bolding declaring it, and it will just conveniently shield him from a hot topic.

I think I would be skeptical of Rudy, if he all the sudden decided he was pro life-in the heat of a presidential run.

A sort of, well he isn't pro life, but at least he isn't trying to snow me about his position, type deal.

That said, I think at some point Rudy's pro choice positions along with some other social conservative ones may hurt him.

Rudy is one I would vote for in a general, but I don't think I could vote for him in a primary-but I admit I am leery of voting for people who take a position simply to court my vote, I would rather they be honest with their position, and tell me why I should vote for them anyway.

I don't think you are going to hear Rudy backing down from any of his past positions. I think he has too much personal integrity and respect for the voters' intelligence to do that. The appeal of the man is based on his strength of character. I'm sure he's well aware of this.

Rudy Giuliani is an executive. After putting much of the NYC mafia out of business as DA, he cleaned up a cesspool of crime, vagrancy, and drug ridden neighborhoods that plagued NYC for years, and had gotten significantly worse under David Dinkens. The city was beyond dead broke when he took over. He turned that all around in his two terms. Granted, he had the luck of being in power as mayor of the world's capitol city during the greatest economic expansion in modern history. I had the luck of being there to take part and witness much of it. I took my Y2K blood money and moved to the midwest from NYC in 8/00. It was obvious the boom was over. Pardon me, I digress.

I love Rudy Giuliani. The man would be an outstanding president if granted the opportunity. His pro-choice stand will certainly cost him some votes, but I don't those folks would be voting for the Democrat either, it's a non-vote for both. If he makes it through the primary process I think he would Hillary, or whomever the Dems ran, their figurative lunch. It's a big "if". Social Issues seem to carry more weight these days than fiscal issues these days. I don't agree with that, but that's just the way it is.

on some positions. I think he will say he now opposes partial birth abortion. He has already been praising conservative judges.

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

Oh, yeah, nominated by a President who had previously been pro-choice.

Surely the key thing, regarding any candidate, not just this one, is what they would do as President?

Let's keep the questions focussed on that, huh?

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

Is not that a person can't have a change of heart, the point is that he lied in his interview and pretended he was never something that he actually was.

I don't really listen to the RS Interviews, not particularly liking the medium, but I'm glad you guys highlighted this bit.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

He talked specifically about the time that he changed his mind. He said he was previously in favour of abortion rights and now is not. He also said that he rejected the label 'pro-choice' and always had. So what? He is not mincing his words, hiding his position, hiding his former position, or hiding the fact that he has changed his mind.

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

"Pro-choice" has a very specific meaning, and Mitt Romney clearly adopted it. He talks about his change of heart - that's fine. It seems contrived to me, but it's out there for anyone else to see. He's seeking to avoid the "label" because he knows it's damaging to him, but "label" is just a euphemism for "description," and in this case, the "description" fits.

>>"Pro-choice" has a very specific meaning, and Mitt Romney clearly adopted it.

He used to hold the views that are described that way, sure. No attempt to hide that.

>>He talks about his change of heart - that's fine. It seems contrived to me, but it's out there for anyone else to see.

Agreed on all points. It seems contrived to me, too. But everyone will make their own judgement on that.

>>He's seeking to avoid the "label" because he knows it's damaging to him, but "label" is just a euphemism for "description," and in this case, the "description" fits.

No, that doesn't fit with what he said, or the (apparently) recorded facts. He rejected the label even when he held those views, even when he was still seeking office in MA, and it WAS in his interests to describe himself that way.

He didn't say why he didn't like the label, or even why he thinks the label matters, but I am not terribly worried by that.

The point is that he has been honest and open about how and when his views changed. No evasions or deceptions.

One of the good things about RedState and sites like it is that such evasions would not hold, even if a candidate tried them these days.

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

He used to hold the views that are described that way, sure. No attempt to hide that.

Cripes, this is nearing cultic devotion. To describe the interview on that particular subject as anything but deeply disingenuous is absurd.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

>>Cripes, this is nearing cultic devotion. To describe the interview on that particular subject as anything but deeply disingenuous is absurd.

The notion that I have any sort of devotion to this candidate, let alone cultic is simply facile.

You can describe the interview in any way you like. But the facts speak for themselves. Governor Romney was completely open about the fact that he used to hold one set of views and has changed his mind.

It seems you just don't know what the word 'disingenuous' means. If you did, you would back up your words with an example of something Romney tried to hide.

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

We are but warriors for the working-day.

I did well before you did.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Oh yeah my dad can beat up your dad :P

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

Let's all breathe.

Oh yeah...nominated by a president who had formerly been pro-choice.

The best indicator of future behavior is previous behavior.

Bush set out to appoint strict constructionists and got one wrong. Happened to Reagan too.

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

Bush 41 set out to nominate someone easily confirmable and got it wrong. Not that surprising that a president without backbone gets it wrong when he sets out to take the path of least resistence.

The one time Reagan really messed up is when he made it a priority to nominate a woman over the most qualified. The other screwup was his third choice - and the first two would have been superb justices. So, I find it difficult to fault him too much on that one.

...if Bush 41 had made it a priority to nominate a woman, as Reagan had, the runner-up, 5th Circuit Chief Judge Edith Jones would have been nominated and probably confirmed at that point, and she would have been a rockstar conservative justice.

The general consensus is that Edith Jones could not be confirmed today. But she's only 56 or 57, and I say we should give it a try anyway, just in case she could possibly be squeezed onto the court. :-)

41 was horribly misled by Sununu, from everything I have read (just like Kozynski vouched for Keenedy -- oops). Not sure if you can hold that against him.

well by kyle8

I hold it against him for having Sununu as his right hand man.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Kennedy was an attempt to avoid another Borking, in hindsight I wish Reagan had gone for the Borking and kept sending similar.

Although, Kennedy may have had a different record before nomination, I admit at the time of the nominations I was more interested in how big I could make my hair (not very) and what boy I had a crush on.

the 5 was for EZ

The only predictor of the future is the record of the past.

Best to deal with that honestly, yes?

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Then find something in his record you don't like, and let me know about it.

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

As the kids say, RTFA.

Am I allowed to officially name the class of Romney Zombies now? Are we at that stage?

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Do you have anything to contribute at all?

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

I certainly had nothing to do with TFA that you still haven't read. ;-)

We are but warriors for the working-day.

You have maintained that Romney lied.

You are lying, he is (as far as I know) not.

Romney was asked about his previous position. He met the question head on. He said he had changed his mind. He said when. He said why.

If you had a mind. You could change it too.

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

Perhaps we shouldn't be tossing weighty moral judgements around when it's nowhere near clear that Romney lied.

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

Come now.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

For heuristic purposes:

1) How did Romney characterize himself?
2) What did Romney say he never was?
3) What are the qualifications for being the thing that Romney said he never was?
4) Did Romney meet those qualifications in the past?
5) Does the answer to 4 make the answer to 2 truthful?

Thank God the Romney folks got to you before some fool showed you an e-meter.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

He never said he "never was" anything. He said he never called himself pro-choice. Can you prove that he did?

You've already mastered the most important thing: the holier-than-thou, everyone-who-disagrees-is-immoral-or-backward attitude.

You'll fit right in at DailyKos.

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

How did Clarence Thomas get on the Supreme Court?

Something about he found something on a coke can?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

1. Judges Matter Most on Social Policy. In the end, it doesn't matter a whole lot if Mitt were pro-life or pro-choice. The only difference is probably that he would have signed instead of vetoed the stem cell research bill. What matters most are judges. I'm afraid that he wouldn't have the backbone to deliver the judges we need - and certainly not to renominate nominees proven to be controversial like Dubya has been known to do.

I'm not asking for pro-life judges - I'm asking for strict constructionists who have some degree of regard for respecting precedence, but don't see it as a barrier when the precedence is clearly wrong.

2. Character Matters A Whole Heck of a Lot in a President. That Mitt is attempting to run a misdirection and mischaracterize his position on this instead of taking it head-on is the most troubling part. I'm having nightmares of a repeat of Bush 41.

>>I'm not asking for pro-life judges - I'm asking for strict constructionists

That's the point. Judges who put their pro-life views ahead of the law would be as bad as judges who put their pro-choice views ahead of the law. No legislating from the bench, in any direction!

>>That Mitt is attempting to run a misdirection and mischaracterize his position on this instead of taking it head-on is the most troubling part.

I didn't hear him say anything in that interview which is incompatible with what has been posted below.

How much more 'head on' can he be?

He tells you that he changed his mind. He tells you when he changed his mind. He tells you why he changed his mind.

Seemed pretty clear to me. No evading. No distortions. No misdirecting or mischaracterising.

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

Judges who put their pro-life views ahead of the law would be as bad as judges who put their pro-choice views ahead of the law.

Let me be the first to welcome Stephen A. Douglas to RedState.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

Only if you don't know history, my friend.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

of the Constitution as the Constitution, rather than using the Constitution as a means of implementing a party platform.

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

If the current setup continues, the 08 race looks like a McCain vs. Someone. All along, it has been assumed that the Someone will be to McCain's right: Brownback, Tancredo, Gingrich, Allen. But as each seems to fall by the wayside for different reasons, it is increasingly likely that the Someone will be to McCain's left (at least on social issues). Guiliani and Romney seem to be the most likely candidates right now. Both have strong, long-lasting pro-abortion records. McCain has 20 years of pro-life votes on judges and abortion. Once, he said that we weren't ready to overturn Roe which makes his record imperfect. But it is indisputably a better record than either Guiliani or Romney on the issue.

Things may change (please Sanford run!), but if they don't we could be looking at a pro-life McCain vs. a pro-choice Romney in the final analysis. Conservatives seem to like Romney more, but can he or Guiliani get past their pro-choice stance?

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

As this very thread -- and history -- shows, there is a critical mass of vocal conservatives eager to be kicked in the crotch where their putative principles are concerned. They'll rationalize pretty much anything.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

But I'm not that harsh on Guiliani and Romney supporters. Right now there is not great nominee prospect. I think someone like Gov. Sanford would fill that void. However, there is a good chance that when our primary votes start counting, the current dilemma will persist.

Weighing a proven executive record, ideological agreement on the scope of government, a pro-market instinct, a commitment to prosecute the war on terror, and a pro-choice, socially liberal outlook (Guiliani, Romney) against a strong pro-life record, a strong Small Government record, an anti-pork zealot, a commitment to lead the war on terror, a penchant for thinking man can solve all problems through "reform," and a worrying lack of concern with free speech (McCain) is not an easy task. I understand why some would opt for the first option in spite of their drawbacks. At present, I lean toward the later in spite of his drawbacks. And like many Republicans, I hold out hope for someone who can combine the positives of these candidates without the negatives. Gov. Sanford, Gov. Bush, Gov. Owens, and Gov. Pawlenty would at least be an improvement on the current crop.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

So Adam by Oz

does it matter to you that there is a great difference between Guiliani (still pro-choice, still pro-gay, still anti-guns) and Romney (now pro-life, never pro-gay, never anti-guns)?

Or is it just convenient to lump together so you can pretend that Romney is as liberal as Guiliani and can thus be written off?

As a pro-gay rights Republican myself, that doesn't really help Romney in my eyes. But this isn't about me. It is my understanding that most evangelical voters will vote on abortion more than guns or gay rights. Since guns haven't been a hot topic recently, I doubt they will come up in the 08 campaign. If Romney or Guiliani are top candidates, abortion will come up. And their past actions will matter. If I were to support a pro-choicer, I think Guiliani has a more compelling overall package to offer. Romney has won one election and was a decent Governor of a very liberal state. He did so by campaigning as pro-choice and now is willing to flip-flop to run nationally. I have no reason to believe he will stick his neck out on pro-life issues.

And just be clear, I'm not writing off either of them.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

because we've had a strongly pro-gun chairman on the House Judiciary committee, and a strongly pro-gun speaker of the House. Substitute Chairman Conyers and speaker Pelosi for Sensenbrenner and Hastert, and watch that change.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

Club for Growth, CATO, Heritage, American Enterprise, Family Research Council, Concerned Women for America, etc. all need to get together and - for the sake of presenting the most unifying and dynamic candidate in 2008 need to annoint someone that all of their constituencies can get behind - and then start raising money like madmen.

I like Mike Pence as well as Newt (although I have concerns about him being electable, I'd vote for him over everyone else in the current field, I think,) but I'm definitely open to Gov. Sanford, too.

then I'd be right there with you.

as pro-life. I'm not disputing Romney's is a change from the past.

In fact, I see them as equals here, but McCain with his spending limits on free speech and ego make him far down my list of GOP nominees.

I'll vote for McCain over any Democrat in 2008, but I'll do it while holding my nose.

Pataki is probably the only GOPer that would push me to the Dems.

the McCain amnesty bill which I suspect the CoGers would like since it provides cheap labor.

>>Pataki is probably the only GOPer that would push me to the Dems.

But, despite accounts that he is very effective on the stump in Iowa, I can't seem him emerging as a factor. A governor who is not even the biggest star from his own state has problems.

Of course, if Pataki v. 1.0 - the guy who sorted the budget out after 1994 - were available, that might be different.

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

I'm going to have experience holding my nose and voting for a Republican in the Govna's race in Texas this year. I just don't see how I could bring myself to do that for McCain, though. I might just leave that blank on my ballot.

What's wrong with Perry?

The Economist has been very supportive of his work on tort reform.

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

He's not really a leader on anything. The base has to do all the heavy lifting and then he jumps on the bandwagon and signs the bills.

He's only a little more responsible for Tort Reform than Bill Clinton is for Welfare Reform.

Also, he just instituted the largest business tax increase (to be paid by consumers) in state history.

Agree with you about that. He's better than the alternatives, but there's no way I'd support him for President! Or VP. Or ... well, you get the idea.

Trust me. As bad as McCain would likely be, he'd beat Hillary by a bunch.

I still believe in rallying around the GOP nominee in the general although with Pataki, I'm not sure I could tell the difference. Not that I think I'll have to make that choice.

compiles 20 years of pro-life votes, he can make a mistake while reaching out too.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Personally I'm tired of people with a 20 year record running for office. I know I'm in a minority on that one though probably.

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

But that is a different argument than the one at hand. McCain has the most solid pro-life record of this crop: McCain, Romney, Guiliani. As Allen's star falls and Brownback and Gingrich remain unelectable, it becomes increasingly likely that the primary will be pro-life McCain vs. pro-choice Somebody.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Is that what you meant by mistake? If he makes those kind of mistakes and is unable to keep track what he believes from one day to the next, we don't need him anywhere near the White House. Psychiatric care might be a better option.

Of course, there was nothing accidental about it. Either he was lying 3 days before and 3 days after or he was lying then. That statement was every bit of an "honest mistake" as was Bill Clinton's statement that he "did not have sexual relations with that woman." He thought he could get away with it. He was wrong.

His votes are (nearly) irrelevant. What matters is what kind of judicial appointments he would make.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

It's pretty obvious from their records and comments that if abortion is a big issue to you as a voter the order of acceptability is McCain, Romney, Guiliani. If you find a way to justify why one quote undoes 20+ years of votes while accepting a politically motivated conversion after a pro-choice careeer, you are seeing what you want to see. That isn't altogether uncommon among Republicans when McCain comes up.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

If you actually want to the end to the constitutional right to abortion, the order of acceptability is: Romney, Gulliani, McCain.

Romney will likely appoint originalists to the bench because he has been a victim of an out of control judiciary himself. There are never any guarantees here, but he's the best we got out of this bunch.

Gulliani is a total unknown. I really have no idea what kind of judges he would appoint.

We know what kind of judges McCain will appoint and it isn't good. He will fill our district courts and SCOTUS with non-principled jurists who will throw out the constitution and make it up as they go along. Are we to expect that justices that would approve of censoring political speech before an election are the same ones that will vote to overturn Casey/Roe/Griswold?
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

for making my point. People who argue that McCain is a bad choice based on abortion are seeing what they want to see. And this comment is exactly that:

We know what kind of judges McCain will appoint and it isn't good. He will fill our district courts and SCOTUS with non-principled jurists who will throw out the constitution and make it up as they go along

Yeah, we know that. Because we hate McCain and thus he must be wrong on everything.

McCain has his faults and CFR is one of them. But small government, abortion, and judges have been high points. He voted for Bork, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and every Bush appointee. He has praised them. He has opposed abortion on demand his entire career. And he is quite possibly the most popular pro-lifer in the country. He has his problems, but abortion is not one of them. Unless you see what you want to see rather than his record.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I disagree with the use of the word "know" when it comes to McCain's possible judicial nominations. Or pretty much anything else about almost any politician.

I'm willing to infer some things based on CFR and I'm willing to discount his voting record on nominees because I don't think it is germaine to the argument. I would want to hear the candidate, any candidate, discuss the potential judicial nominees in clear terms as W did. Will the candidate nominate "constructionists", who are his/her "heroes" on the Court? Then I'm better prepared to make an informed judgement. As it is, inference is the best I currently have.

With respect to a 20 year old comment on abortion, again, I would like an update. Would the candidate prefer to see Roe overturned? Does the candidate think Roe is "good law"? As with judicial nominations, in the absence of clear statements all I have is information from which to draw an inference.

With respect to McCain (and me) I dislike McCain so much and have absolutely no respect for him (the politician) or his positions or his priorities that I will freely admit that I will most likely draw a negative conclusion if I am confined to inference.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Sure by zuiko

"Know" was hyperbole, but the reason I used the word is that we can be much more certain of the kind of judges that McCain will choose than the other two. Romney or Gulliani might also have some constitution rending passions that I don't know about, but I certainly don't have to guess about McCain's.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

And I don't hate the guy. I wouldn't even care to see a primary challenge for the guy. He can stay in the Senate for the rest of his life for all I care. That is where he belongs. I just wouldn't trust him in any executive position above dog catcher.

My estimate of his choices on judges is based on what we know about his position on the issues, weighted by how passionate he is about those issues. It is an entirely reasonable way to arrive at an estimate. More reasonable I'd say, then looking at all the nearly party-line votes he has been involved in over the years.

Votes are meaningless. We aren't talking about electing McCain to a position where he casts votes with 99 other people. We are talking about electing him to a position where he is a LEADER. His priorities, passions, and judgment are what matters. They are the best window into what kind of leader he would be. His record there is atrocious.

If it came down to a choice between CFR and Roe, which would he choose? Well, lets see.

Which is he more passionate about? CFR.
What has he worked on more? CFR.
What has he taken on significant risks to his political career to advance? CFR.
Which has he flip-flopped on to float an ill fated trial balloon during his campaign for the Presidential nomination? Roe.

I think the answer is obvious to anyone who really cares to look.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Did he govern pro-choice?

I'll answer for you - NO.

So, his full public record as an elected official is pro-life, as is McCain's.

However, the biggest thing McCain's ever run is a Senate office. Romney has been the #1 guy in a large organization for most of his adult life. That's the difference.

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

If people go negative against McCain (again) in 2008, I wouldn't be surprised if he responds much more than last time. He has a lot of the old Bush team on his side and they won't stand by and play nice.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

His only real hope of winning the nomination (which isn't really much of a hope, anyway) is to trash all his opponents until he is the last man standing. He cannot run on his record of leadership in the Senate, because his biggest priorities and the things he has personally gone to bat for have been all wrong. He can try to sell himself on his overall vote record, but that isn't really all that relevant when he is seeking an executive position.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

he's got a good chunk of the Redstate editors on his side, apparently.

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

Here's my lowdown on Mitt Romney: None of the debate about his pro-life pronunciations or pro-choice past predilections will mean peanuts when push comes to shove. And the reason is that Romney is a Mormon. And the United States will *never* elect a Mormon President. Romney is in this race to stir the pot and fire up the debate, but there is a greater chance that I will be struck by lightning while sitting inside my automobile that has been moved into the underground cave where neutrino detectors are lodged than there is that Mitt Romney will ever be elected President.

and we'll never elect a Catholic either.

Number of Catholics before Kennedy: 0
Number of Catholics elected President since Kennedy: 0

we'd be electing a Morman every 4 years.

Yea by zuiko

Just like we'll never elect a President who is a member of that wacky cult of Catholicism. There is a very long and rich history of anti-Catholic bigotry in this country going all the way back to its inception. This was still very strong in the 50s and 60s, and even today, it is still a major issue with some people in some areas. That didn't stop JFK from winning.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

To understand why Ben decided to take the knife to Mitt Romney right now for any other reason. I'll listen to the interview again, but basically this post is making Romney out to be the First Officially Flagged Liar of the 2008 campaign, torpedoeing him before he ever gets out of drydock, so to speak.

I agree with Oz (I think). I'm a little surprised at the vituperative anger that's being thrown at Mitt Romney right now. You know, it *is* possible to have been an ardent pro-choice advocate in the past who had a change of mind over the years. And here some people are throwing him to the wolves, and it's only September 2006. It's really kind of sad. If I told people on this blog at the beginning that I had been a male-consort NOW activist in the past, I probably wouldn't be liked very much here, either.

I read Ben's piece here and I think about how badly Ben wants to cut Romney off at the ankles, and it frightens me a little. Maybe I shouldn't have donated any money to this blog. After all, I was an ardent pro-choice advocate and a leftist throughout my 20's.

I was never a leftist, but there was a time in which I (stupidly) thought that "I have no right to tell someone else what they can do with their body" and thus, the 'personally pro-life label' still fit. I was pretty ignorant as to what abortion really was, and never thought about the other life involved. I am sure some would say these same things about me. However, I still would never call my history as pro-choice either.

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

First of all, I'm not a politician. Never have been, nobody in my family is one, and I don't want to run for elected office. Someone who is thinking of running for President should have a little higher level of scrutiny and skepticism applied to his statements than mine merit as an observer and commentator. However, I know from my own experience that there are issues and philosophical and moral stances we all take in life as thinking people that later we repudiate, "in the fullness of time" as it were. I just would have expected that Romney's change of mind would be viewed a little more optimistically than it was reading some of the opinions in this thread.

I believe people, serious people who try their best to think things through, can have changes of heart and changes of mind that are meaningful. As you go through life, sometimes you do realize that if you "had known then what you know now" you would never have held the positions you did at the time.

On the other hand, this could be just a case of a politician who is so used to the old game of saying one thing to some constituents and the complete opposite to others that he really hasn't understood that now, today, we live in a somewhat different world. Thanks to the internet, politicians can't get away with that kind of double-dealing any longer. At least not as easily. So if Romney is saying he's now "pro life" because he thinks he's talking to a little cohort of potential donors who aren't going to compare his statements going forward, and keep track of them, he's dead wrong and he's playing the politics the old way.

I just think that casting Romney into The Pit or onto The Pile™ at this moment is a little premature. As someone who *has* changed his mind on the issue of abortion, I know that it's a difficult and often wrenching introspective process. Maybe he deserves a little better than to be castigated so easily.

[Side note: I have no small amount of appreciation for the fact that Ben himself was a victim of an even worse "gotcha" campaign.]

I still have an open mind on Romney. I'm waiting to hear more.

I lit into Newt Gingrich a while back. Guilty as charged. But I did so because the things he said in that interview sounded a lot like distillations of Democrat talking points at what I thought was a particularly important moment, given that Rockefeller was speaking on CBS the next morning taking that ball and just running, running, running with it.

>>I agree with Oz (I think). I'm a little surprised at the vituperative anger that's being thrown at Mitt Romney right now. You know, it *is* possible to have been an ardent pro-choice advocate in the past who had a change of mind over the years.

Our very own Gamecock 'came out' in a discussion with me the other day. He was a Jackson delegate in 1984. Cue all the people who are going to say that he is:
a) a liberal
b) lying about being a liberal
c) probably black

I am pretty sure he is not a or b. No idea about c, but he would probably answer if you asked him.

You just have to remember that only people with minds can change their minds. That's why some people don't get it.

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

One of the reasons that I'm willing to give Romney a little more rope on this subject is because I am painfully and awkwardly aware of the way I thought when I was 22 years old, living in a liberal state, going to a liberal school, with a liberal state of mind, and making love to a verrrrrrry liberal girlfriend, in the spirit of all things liberal. And I wasn't even a politician!

I appreciate that you were on the other side in the past. I welcome you as part of the movement now. I have had the opportunity to convert a few people on this issue, and in each case, there was a moment when the truth about what they had been through came over them, and two of them actually broke down and wept with me over it. I don't think that what you've done in the past matters if you sincerely take the side of life now, any more than it mattered in the story of the Prodigal Son.

Yet you, unlike Mitt Romney, have no incentive to lie about it.

The equivalent would be if you claimed to always be personally pro-life, even though you were a NOW activist in the past. It's a falsehood that treats pro-lifers like saps, as if a lifetime of being on one side of the issue can change with a snap of the fingers...while people can change (and as I said in the post, I really do hope Mitt Romney has sincerely changed, and I would be defending him on this if he had been honest), they shouldn't try to shove their past positions under the rug and ask pro-lifers to ignore it.

If one can change so easily one way, they can change just as easily back in the other direction.

The "shifting weathervane" aspect of this has me bothered too. He's going to have to explain that a whole lot better. I did like some of the other things he said in this interview. For a governor of the most notoroiously Liberal Northeastern state in the country, I think it was a pretty bold move to go on the record with that statement for RedState.

You have to live here in Massachusetts to understand that, I guess. It's like announcing that you're pro-Bush while working at DePaul University College of Law. Of the handful of professors I knew who might be inclined to vote Republican, none of them were willing to intimate that, or align themselves with any Conservative or Republican positions publicly. In whispers, maybe. Having seen that situation firsthand, I therefore am willing to give him a little bit of time on this issue to explain his views, and his change of mind, a bit further.

....is that you were never dishonest with us about your past.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

What Romney said was that he never called himself pro-choice. You've been dodging this for the entire thread. Point to where Romney's statement that "he never called himself pro-choice" is false.

"When it comes to protecting our citizens, there is no place for political correctness" -- Mitt Romney

can someone start main message board threads for bashing McCain, Guliani, etc.

A couple weeks ago. McCain gets a day about once a week.

dang by Oz

I missed it.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

flames out in the primaries, it'll be a four volume set...

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

First, please stop the silly indirect comparisons the Ronald Reagan. Reagan saw abortion as an issue of conscience when he was signing bills as Governor of California in 1967. It then became his mission to eliminate this scourge on humanity. I can’t find any evidence of Romney ever being so morally conflicted. That said if he has honestly changed his mind, overall it is a positive personal move.

Next, the interview and article clearly show Romney running away from a life of pro choice positions. His attempt to deny this by engaging in semantic articulation seems at best specious. Thus, my overall discomfort with his statements on abortion and a characterization as calculated politics. While I can not find direct evidence of Romney calling himself pro choice, clearly and undeniably this has been his personally articulated position prior to the recent epiphany.

Finally, to play on peoples impressions by engaging in this dialogue is patently dishonest. State your egregious sins of the past if you must; offer your apologies and indicate a mission to atone for honest mistakes of conscience. However, don’t deny your past has existed as such. It demeans personal character and sows doubt in the minds of honest intellectuals. That is the last quality we need in a President today.

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

and she's vocally, vocally pro-life. (it's a political crush - kind of cute, I think.)

In politics, one should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

I am pro-life. I could easily vote for Rudi or Mitt. There are many ways to promote the culture of life. There's only one way to protect national security - vote for a President who can do the job.

hmmmm by Oz

I noted in my last post "sarcasm intended" but put it in brackets so it got eaten.

Just in case this point hasn't already been raised...who cares? As long as Mitt Romney recognizes the strength of the pro-life movement and acts accordingly to placate them, who cares if he's personally committed to the cause? Prolifers need to stop worrying about personal motives and start worrying about the end result. If Romney is the best candidate we have, and he pledges to elect constitution abiding judges, thats all the prolife community should ask for.

International Affairs is just Political Science with an accent.

I'll tell you who cares: people who want someone who represents them in office, and who won't be seduced by the idea of 'moderating' his views in order to get Clinton-style approval ratings.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Moderated himself? If anything, he's going the other way.

If he's willing to try to pretend he never called himself 'pro-choice,' then I think he's capable of saying anything to get elected.

In other words, if you can flip right in the primary, you can flop left in the general.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

He said he avoided the "pro-choice label." Let's not play semantics. He's admitted he converted to the pro-life cause. It logically follows that he admits he was not previously a pro-lifer.

You want to question the timing of the conversion? Was it opportunistic and not genuine? I have no problem with that. Calling him "a liar" for his recollection of how he used to phrase his ideology? That's just silly.

Oh, BTW, I'm one of many who believe a pro-life position is a necessity for a GOP presidential nominee. I'm willing to give the man a chance to convince me his conversion was genuine. He does have pro-lifers who defend his actions as governor over the past few years. While it is from a pro-Mitt site, there are some pro-life-pro-Romney (whew) facts . Look, he's no Sam Brownback, but I think he's a huge improvement on life issues from Giuliani.

"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

W has certainly proven he doesn't care about polls, and no one doubts he's pro life, but that what did that get us? Harriet Miers! Luckily, courageous conservative media outlets and bloggers rescued the President. And lets not go crazy on John "blank slate on abortion" Roberts either. He was picked over JRB, Pryor, Easterbrook, Edith Jones, etc. The fact that Roberts may turn out doesn't mean it was an all-time-great pick. The President made a hopeful grab at a stealth candidate (and Coulter called him on it at the time), when he could have had a sure thing.

As for your "Clinton-style approval ratings", I believe those were previously known as "Reagan-style approval ratings." Let's not get silly and say being popular is a bad thing.
I'd like a Republican President who could stay north of 50% in their approval rating--that's no sign of weakness, per se. That's why Reagan changed the political landscape: he made conservatism appealing. He had principles and appeal. That's part of the job of a politician.

Now, Romney certainly has appeal and can be convincing. Whether or not he's "principled" in his current stance, and is truly a convert to the life cause, is something everyone's going to have to figure out for themselves. Given his family history, I don't have a hard time believing he's come around on life issues (growing up in NY, all the pro-aborts I know are DINKS, divorcees, or never-get-married-because-I-like-my-freedom types, doesn't square with his long-term-marriage, 5-kid-family). And the "He's a liar!" refrain smacks of moonbat talk. Please--enough with that.

If people want McCain's track record on abortion, I can understand that. But do they really want McCain?

I'm ready for Newt.

"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

What has that poor woman done to you that her name has become such a slur?

And since when was Reagan always riding high in the polls? Wasn't he way down in the dumps during Iran-Contra and the loss of the Senate?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Below 50% in his first term, well above when his second term ended, just as with Reagan.

And please, stop with the juvenile putting words in my mouth. I never demeaned that "poor woman." I simply mentioned that her nomination was a catastrophe. A position echoed by about 3/4 of the conservative blogosphere. I'm sure she's a wonderful lady.

_______________________________________________
"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

_______________________________________________
"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

Perhaps Mitt Romney truly has had a change of heart on the issue, subsequent to his most recent election. If so, we ought to welcome it. In fact, I hope that if this is the case, Romney will embrace his conversion on the issue honestly, and relate the philosophical reasons behind his original views and the views he holds today. One does not suddenly recognize the humanity of the embryo after a lifetime of promotion and support for abortion law.

But whatever the case is, don't try to change the past: Mitt Romney has always been a pro-choice politician, whether he called himself that or not. And trusting in a position change on such a fundamental issue that occurs at such a late date, when there is such an enormous political incentive to do so, is worth only as much credence as we are willing to give it.

Romney has been consistently pro-choice as a politician. Now he says he has had a change of heart and that he never accepted the pro-choice label. Ben is pointing out that this is not exactly the type of person you would trust on this issue. It fairly screams political maneuvering. The point isn't whether Romney is pro-life in his heart now or not, but whether or not we can trust him. Further explanation and elucidation is needed. Not deflections about what labels are being used.

Two points, the second more important than the first.

1. He is not lying if he is telling the literal truth. Has he in fact ever called himself "pro-choice"? You may think he is being misleading, but he is not lying.

2. By your extremely high standard, every politician running for president would be a liar.

A governor, representative, senator, or any other official has to satisfy his constituency. The concerns of that constituency will never be fully aligned with the concerns of the national party. Each candidate must be permitted to adjust his previous positions, especially since he may not have believed in those previous positions. We need candidates to adjust for a national campaign. Not to allow such adjustment would hurt the chances of Republican candidates.

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

This "liar" attack is complete liberal-speak. Bush is a liar! C'mon, folks. Read the substance of what Romney's saying. He's a convert to the life cause. That not good enough for you? Want someone with a life-long dedication to the cause? More power to you. No need to call the man a liar. You saw the light before Mitt. Be proud.

"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

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

So long as he is dishonest about his past.

To a reasonable person, that might suggest dishonesty about the present.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

He is not lying if he is telling the literal truth.

One should not have to explain the difference between fact and truth to anyone older than six.

It is your choice to demand little of those who wish to lead you. They will give accordingly little in return.

Those of us who care about principles will act rather differently.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Your ad hominem attacks against me, and against others here who argue against you, are unwarranted.

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

I think that Mitt Romney must have misspoken. Everyone, including Mitt Romney, knows what his former statements were about abortion. If he changed his mind, then of course he used to have previous views before turning pro-life.

You are taking one sentence from a conversational interview and blowing it out of proportion. You should be ashamed for saying that he lied. That is such a harsh word, for what I believe was a verbal gaffe.

At least talk to him before blasting him on the front page of RedState for the whole day.

"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher

You might wish to self-educate on Romney's putative pro-life trajectory before making such statements.

Suffice it to say that Ben knows of what he speaks.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

The pro-life community can embrace Governor Romney because he has defended the sanctity of life as governor of Massachusetts.

By vetoing various pro-abortion initatives, including efforts to expand embryonic stem cell research and emergency contraception, Governor Romney has put action behind his pro-life words. This is significant for those of us in the pro-life movement because it confirms that he's genuine on the issue. It's one thing to talk the pro-life talk. It's quite another to actually take up the fight and stand against pro-abortion efforts. Governor Romney has practiced what he's been preaching on this issue.

I'm in contact with other pro-lifers on a daily basis and we are excited about a Mitt Romney candidacy. We understand that it takes courage to stand up for life in a state as radically pro-abortion as Massachusetts. And we feel confident that Mitt Romney would make a great pro-life president.

Nathan

In his defense of his favorite prospective "persperant," George Allen, Rush threw in something positive on Romney suggesting that he likes him a lot, too.

....seeing what pro-life activists in Massachusetts have to say about that.

We have. It's unpleasant reading.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

That's a full-bore Pro-Life activist talking.

"In 2004, Nathan joined the staff of Heartbeat International as the Director of International Program and Public Policy. In this role, Nathan is able to advocate on behalf of pro-family and pro-life principles. In the fall of 2004, Nathan implemented and directed a “get-out-the-vote” campaign to register new “values voters” all around the country.

He has also become an internationally known pro-life advocate through his work with life-affirming pregnancy resource centers overseas. In the fall of 2005, Nathan organized a pro-life conference in the Ukraine that included participants from 16 different nations." - from NathanBurd.com

Reasonable people disagree with Ben.

(1999)

McCain flip-flops on abortion. In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, McCain said: "I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even-the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.”

Three days later, McCain said “I have always believed in the importance of the repeal of Roe v. Wade, and as President, I would work toward its repeal.”

WHERE DOES MCCAIN STAND?

An essential part of lying (vs. questionable choice of words) is deception.

When Romney clearly says that he supported legalized abortion in the past, though he never used the term "pro-choice" to describe himself, what idiot could interpret that as Romney claiming he never favored legalized abortion? What factually false belief are you claiming Romney is trying to promote with his statements that he supported abortion in the past, with or without a particular label?

When Clinton claimed under oath and in public that he never had sex with Monica, he was lying because his statement was reasonably interpreted to include denying oral sex with her. After the truth was known, his attempt to weasel out of responsibility for lying, by saying his definition of sex didn't include oral sex, was of course ridiculous.

Suppose instead Clinton had said "I never had sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. The most she ever did was go down on me!" It wouldn't have been a lie, because he wasn't trying to deceive us about what actually happened, even though he was attempting a silly spin. It would have been appropriate to ridicule that spin, but dishonest to call that statement a lie.

If your real gripe is that Romney supported legal abortion in the past, and you question the sincerity of his changed position for outlawing abortion, go ahead and make that argument. But acting like his statement about labels was a lie is pathetic.

With a founding editor taking such a strong stand, it sounds like an official RedState position. Is RedState in official "slap-down Romney" mode? I certainly use no-holds-barred take-downs like that at my own blog. Of course, that's probably why my blog has a readership of three. OK, fine, two. There's plenty of sites for people to pop off, but precious few like this one where there's thoughful analysis, and the underlying premise is that we're all on the same side, trying to paint the political map red. To call Romney a liar, two+ years out from the '08 election, is both a weak charge and, in my view, cheapens the site.

_______________________________________________
"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

It smacks too much of what we see from the Kossack crowd where they exert their efforts looking to root out heretics rather than trying to win converts.

Reagan's 11th commandment.

One would think that someone who was the victim of such an unwarranted attack on his credibility would defer from an outright attack on a fellow Republican based on suppositions and pure speculation.

Thou Shalt Not Allow Blatant Opportunists to Speak Half-Truths in the Pursuit of Power, and Thou Shalt Take It and Like It?

You've got it wrong, my friend.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

unlike other politicians who have opened accounts and posted here when they are looking for a receptive audience. I fail to see the "blatant opportunism" on his part.

If "blatant opportunist" is code for "politician" I will agree with your sentiment. I have yet to find one that doesn't engage in "Half-Truths in the Pursuit of Power". It's part of the job description. However, I don't think that is what you meant.

You guys invited him here. Now he's being attacked for being truthful about his past statements on abortion, and how his views have changed and why they changed. It makes on wonder if this wasn't a setup from the beginning. Set him up....knock him down, after all, the guy is a Mormon.

At least with regards to the charge of plagiarism. At lot of us who defended him initially and urged others to give him the benefit of the doubt got burned by his dishonesty.

Check the edit history there.

Whatever. I'm still waiting on the GBCW diary.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

The left's continuing in there echoes of the same vicious attacks they were making on Ben from the day Red America was announced.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Because O'Rourke was the one who said he never gave Ben Domenech permission to post his material under his byline (as if any reasonable person would believe that a professional writer would say “go ahead and put my material under your byline”) and NR was the one who found out that he ripped off another person’s movie reviews.

Complaining that they were gunning for him since day one is a little bit like Clinton defenders saying he shouldn’t have been impeached for perjury and witness tampering because Republicans were out to get him. It may have been unfair but doesn’t make him any less guilty.

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

The site is cheapened? The horror. Can a GBCW be next?

We are but warriors for the working-day.

An essential part of lying (vs. questionable choice of words) is deception.

If you think Romney's claim to have never thought of himself as pro-choice is not deceptive, you have quite a remarkable standard.

My advice is to let a trusted friend deal with any contractors you may ever need to hire.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Ed Koch once said "If you agree with me on 9 things out of 12 vote for me. If you agree with me on 12 out of 12, see a psychiatrist."

I hope Romney is as good as his word on abortion, but would nominating a governor with no experience in foreign policy wbe a wise choice for president in 2008 given America's role in the world? I know President Bush was in the same boat in 2000, but foreign policy was not a big issue in those days. I would very much like to see Romney in the second slot, where he could be an articulate spokeman for economic policy.

a) Lack of executive experience
or
b) Lack of foreign policy experience

...I'll go for (a) every single time. So will most of the electorate, as shown by the dismal results of Senators seeking the Presidency.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

having been a peanut gallery critic in the congress or a spine reducing diplo lib.

and how are ya Declared bal4? cheers

Romney's pronouncements on foreign affairs have been Reaganesque. And being Guv of Mass is akin to a foreign policy job when dealing with the rest of America!

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

But given that the Presidency is the SINGLE nationally-elected office, and holds the SUM of the executive power of our national government, it's reasonable to ask that the President be with me on ALL of the IMPORTANT issue.

Yes, what's important varies from person to person, but that's what primaries and elections are for.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

My important issues right now mostly have to do with economic matters because I think that for several years we have been heading in a bad direction. Sure things seem good now, but there is WAAAAY too much debt and way too much entitlement spending, and total taxes are much too high. The next administration, in addition to the problems caused by the WOT will have to make some hard decisions on fiscal policy.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

If you assume, as I do, that the election of 2008 will be a referendum on President Bush's foriegn policy, then Governor Romney's lack of real experience relating to the War in Terror/Iraq in my opinion could undermine his ability to speak on it. Not because he does not understand it, from everything I have read on Governor Romney, he appears to be an intelligent, well-informed and thoughtful man, but because he would lack "credibility" in the matter that Clinton and to a lesser extent Bush himself did. But he could also get away with not having made statements which in hindsight look foolish. (Kerry, John F. D-MA) I suppose the solution would be running someone with him who had greater experience in the field (ala Cheney in 2000).

I expect the executive to appoint strict conservatives, which in my mind coincides with repealing the tragic abortion laws we have in place. I believe Giuliani would do that, as well as Romney because they seem like "Law and Order" kind of men. I would be most worried about McCain in this field because I think McCain would, despite his solid pro-life credentials, nominate a "moderate" (whatever that means) to insure an easy confirmation process.

No President is going to be able to perform that miracle. Overturning Roe will simply send the issue back to the States where they will be allowed to regulate abortion as they see fit.

Some states will choose to outlaw the procedure alltogether. Others will restrict it's use based on some sort of "trimester" formula. Others will resrict it for children. Others will do nothing.

The only ways, and I hope our RS lawyers will correct me if I'm wrong, that abortion will be "outlawed" is by Constitutional Amendment (which IMHO will never happen) or by passing either a federal law or state law that defines the unborn as a "human" and says that abortion of said "human" is murder. In the latter case, SCOTUS would get to rule on the law. I don't see that happening either.

Bottom line, nominations are about judicial restraint and constructionist justices, not about overturning a particular law we don't like. (And I really don't like Roe.)

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

My use of the word repeal should be ammended to lifting the federal protections for them and sending them back to the states. I believe that a judicial conservative, or a strict constructionist, or an originalist, or whatever the correct jargon is would work at least make sure that the existing laws are not expanded. A strict constructionist would be hesitant to overturn the desicions of state legislatures and deferential to the democratically elected branches of the federal government.

After McGovern's 1972 takeover, only pretend hawk Carter was the only dem that was elected while the Cold War waged on. Only AFTER the Cold War did a Dem get executive power. Since 911, the American people again will not trust the Dem Party.

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

Many polls seem to indicate that Democrats are close if not even with the Republicans on "Who Do You Trust More on the War on Terror?" Granted polling is usually slightly biased towards the left in most cases, but there are many people in the political center who are fed up with what they view as the failures in the War in Iraq and believe that the Democrats offer a quick and easy solution to it.
Unfortunately I think that the public has a short memory and enough can be easily misled to what really is "the national interest." I think it may take a Democratic Congress/President for people to again realize why they were voted out in the first place.

Democrats have continued to be the majority party in both houses of congress and the presidency in the between election poll world since both Mondale and Dukakis had "big leads" before one vote was cast.

A funny thing happens when a living breathing democrat is compared to a republican in the quiet of a voting both after the inattentive between election poll respondent morphs into an attentive voter:

republicans win during war since the McGovernizing of the Dem party

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

we don't have to lose a city in the process.

In Vino Veritas

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

that abortion is not an issue that particularly moves me. Because then I'd actually have to care about this.

When I see a title that says "Welcome Mitt Romney" on the front page of RS, than a a couple scrolls up a blog that reads "Mitt Romney lies" all I can think is great sandbagging Redstate.

I really don't understand why RS would allow such a negative editorial about a possible contendor. I would just think that opinion pieces like this about any candidate from an editor here this early is in poor taste. This leaves me wondering what is the agenda here at RS?

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

...without a dog in this fight, the only "agenda" here is one where various authors exercise their right to write what they think and put it on the front page. We don't submit our articles before we publish them and we don't censor each other.

I'm sorry that your ox got gored. Really and truly. Now walk it off.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

...with people pointing out Romney's previous statements on Abortion. It's been done here many times. I just think it's poor judgement on RS's part that you have a "Welcome Mitt Romney" headline followed by one calling him a liar. I would think this no matter who the candidate was.

I haven't looked at RS very much lately, so sorry if I missed the times you have done this.

have attacked almost every contender at this point, save maybe Allen and Brownback. Guiliani, McCain and Romney have all had negative articles about them. Even President Bush was pummeled on several occassions including the Miers nomination. The writers do not have to get approval for posting content, so sometimes contradictory positions appear. That's all in the spirit of debate.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

If you don't like it, you might consider a country where their political candidates are pre-anointed.

I have no problem with people asking tough questions and going over past statements of Romney's. It's the way it should be done. As a matter of fact the abortion issue is one that I myself reguraly bring up with people who ask me about Romney.

I do have problem with having a "Welcome Mitt Romney" blog whie a couple scrolls above is a blog from an Editor that says "Romney Lies." It's pretty low class. Just my opinion. If you don't like my opinion maybe you should move to a country where personal opinions aren't allowed.

Of course all of this is pointless now that RS changed the Romney Heading on the homepage.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

They'll totally tell you what the agenda is!

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Let's tell people that disagree with us to go to the other side! Way to build a movement!

It points out the reality that as much as others might want to define redstate as an echo chamber, it isn't.

This thread has Romney defenders, Romney dislikers, and a lot of people like me who just aren't convinced yet he can be trusted. I admit readily I am skeptical of a pro life converstion at a time when the candidate is contemplating a run for the presidency as the GOP candidate.

I am still skeptical of this, and I am not sure I am uber impressed with Romney, but I haven't locked in to any one candidate, and honestly feel passionate about none of them.

But that is why it is nice to see posts that come at both sides, and frankly if Romney can't deal with opposing views, he should back out right now, because this next election cycle I think is going to be very nasty-and the #1 reason why McCain will not be getting my vote, his campaign finance reform bill-is going to make it worse.

I think that " thou dost protest too much" when it comes to Romney "lying" about abortion.

Oh and SOME OF YOU people think that you actually can CONTROL who gets the nomination. Please, some of you guys just must have HUGE egoes to think this little blog is going to be able to sink Romney's candidacy before it even gets started.

I think you must be SCARED Ben that Romney WILL get the nomination because he is getting some good press. I see him coming in second in Iowa, first in New Hampshire, second in South Carolina, Second in Michigan. Then the REST of the primaries will be between Romney and McCain. Until one of these two men become our nominee. May the best man win! And let it not be McCain.

Romney will appoint Constitutionalist Judges before McCain will and the arguments about that will become apparent after the first four primaries. McCain doesn't want his precious campain finance reform being DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Think about that? What kind of judges would his Council to the President(think Harriet Miers' position) have to come up with in order to find someone who would PROTECT HIS PET PROJECT?

This WILL become an issue, and by the way, the pro-gun NRA will make this point. They and many other advicacy groups WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN ELECTIONS WITHIN 60 days of the election. McCain will have a temper tantrum when this brought out by these groups. No McCain isn't presidential material.

Romney v Clinton '08
Romney wins-hands down!

It's not about winning the general right now - it's about who is worth supporting in the primary. McCain people can point to polls showing that he'd beat Hillary hands-down, too. That doesn't mean that I want McCain to be the nominee. I'd greatly prefer Romney over McCain.

I don't think that anyone is "scared" of Romney. We're "scared" of getting fooled again - like we did with Bush 41 on taxes and judicial nominees, and like we did with Dubya on fiscal conservatism and free markets/free trade.

Getting a grilling in the primary is an important part of the primary process so that we know what we're getting when we vote, and I welcome Romney to come out and dispel all of the fears that conservatives have expressed on here.

While it's important for people to voice their opinions, I think people need to take a step back and have a little more perspective. There are more ideas and voices than the 20 or so people who post on RS on a regular basis. RS is great and all, but I have only met one other person who checks RS regularly.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Wow that was enlightening thank you.

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

Step back from the keyboard, take a deep breath, eat something, contemplate your navel or do whatever else it will take to get you off this kick of directly insulting other commenters. Because I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you do that any more.

You know me. I don't bluff.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

Step back, thank you.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

A commenter's accumulated good will is taken into account, however. Within reason.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

meant to be ironic or hopeful?

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

After a while, the prudent man is satisfied when they throw the lance in the right direction more often than not, and remember to put their armor on.

...sayeth, "Thou kickest me in mine own gonads, sir. Therefore, begone."

Unless he is a pro-life Romney Zombie, it seems.

We are but warriors for the working-day.

Cultic? Zombie? Time to step away from the monitor, Josh (and time for a lot of the people on this thread to go cool off somewhere).

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

actually, this was the nicest thing anyone said to me in cyberspace this week. (I was exchanging posts with liberals earlier in the week.) :>)

Not my place; I still feel like a guest here.

But I think Dan and Moe are right. The insults are flowing way too easily.

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

READ IT AND WEEP MCCAINIACS

MOSTELLER, THE SC GOP WOMAN THAT INSULTER ROMNEY ON MORMONISM SEEN HERE DEFENDING MCCAIN ON PRO-LIFE CREDENTIALS AFTER HE WAS CAUGHT PROMISING GOP GROUP HE WOULD NOT PICK SCOTUS JUSTICE THAT WOULD OVERTURN ROE.

CASE CLOSED

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a386711140bb2.htm

McCain refocuses on foes of abortion

By Dave Boyer

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Sen. John McCain, polling a distant second in the South Carolina presidential primary, will spend the next eight weeks trying to convince pro-life voters that he is still committed to their cause.

Sen. John McCain, polling a distant second in the key Republican presidential primary in South Carolina, will spend the next eight weeks trying to convince pro-life voters that he is still committed to their cause.

"We need to fill in the gaps," said McCain campaign spokesman Dan Schnur. "One of our challenges over the next several weeks is to establish John McCain's pro-life voting record in the minds of South Carolina voters."

Mr. McCain told a newspaper's editorial board last summer that he would not support overturning the Supreme Court decision that allows legal abortions, "in the short term or even the long term." He also has angered pro-life groups with his effort to ban "soft money" — often used by such organizations for issue advocacy — in political campaigns.

"There are a lot of reasons why pro-life voters in South Carolina should be skeptical of John McCain, including his recent statements on Roe v. Wade," Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the Washington-based National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), said of the 1973 Supreme Court ruling. "We have multiple problems and concerns with McCain. We're constantly disseminating that information."

Ralph Reed, former executive director of the Christian Coalition and a consultant to Republican front-runner George W. Bush's campaign, said pro-life constituents accounted for 40 percent to 45 percent of the vote in South Carolina's Republican primary in 1996.

"It's going to have a huge impact," Mr. Reed said. "If you're losing that constituency three-, four-or five-to-one, it's very difficult to win that primary."

Mr. McCain's strategy is to win New Hampshire on Feb. 1 and South Carolina Feb. 19 to give him momentum heading into big-state primaries like California and New York in March. But the last independent poll in South Carolina showed Mr. Bush leading Mr. McCain, 62 percent to 15 percent. Mr. McCain has been leading Mr. Bush in most polls in New Hampshire, but trails him in national surveys.

Mr. Reed said Mr. McCain's "secular-style" campaign and his $506 billion tobacco legislation last year are not good omens for him in early Southern primary states like South Carolina and Georgia.

"When you head South, you're talking about two things — tobacco farmers and evangelicals," Mr. Reed said. "He's not high on the Christmas card list of either group."

But Cyndi Mosteller, president of South Carolina Citizens for Life, the NRLC affiliate, is supporting Mr. McCain and said "he certainly meets my conservative requirements."

Mrs. Mosteller said Mr. McCain "recognizes that he misspoke" about his stand on the Roe vs. Wade ruling and that her national organization is clouding the candidate's pro-life record with campaign-finance reform.

"I hope I'm not going to be excommunicated for my stand," she said. "They're meshing wrongly his stand on campaign-finance reform with his solid pro-life position."

Mr. Schnur said there is a "big difference" between the leaders of national conservative lobbies and grass-roots conservatives on the issue of campaign-finance regulations.

"These are the voters who fueled the Republican revolution in 1994," Mr. Schnur said. "Five years later, very little of the things they were promised ever happened. That's because special interests derailed that agenda."

And Trey Walker, Mr. McCain's national field director, said Republicans in South Carolina are aligning themselves with the two leading candidates based on the endorsements of the state's "old guard" politicians for Mr. Bush and a younger generation of politicians, like Rep. Lindsey Graham, who support Mr. McCain.

"It really doesn't have anything to do with the ideological spectrum," Mr. Walker said. "We are the insurgents. South Carolina has a little bit of rebellion in it."

But Mr. Reed noted that Mr. McCain was the only one of the six Republican presidential candidates who didn't speak to an October Christian Coalition meeting in Washington. And he said coalition leader Pat Robertson has a "very strong" organization in South Carolina.

"Senator McCain . . . has really not made an effort at all to reach out to that constituency. It's remarkable," Mr. Reed said. "In the end, he still hits a brick wall because his candidacy is based on changing the rules of politics, rather than addressing the issues of the heart and soul."

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

That's referring to the same, single quote where McCain said that he didn't want Roe overturned. 3 days later, he clarified that he had always opposed Roe and still wants it overturned. That second view is echoed in his 20 year voting record and his comments on all other occasions. No one is denying that he, one time, said Roe was okay. Which makes his abortion record imperfect. Compare that to running for office on a pro-choice platform (Romney) or governing as a pro-choicer (Guiliani). Sure there are people who have a perfect record on the issue, but Coburn isn't getting elected President in our life time. McCain has decades of pro-life votes, quotes, and efforts. He has one quote in the other direction.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Repubs in a closed door meeting he thought would not be made public, the week before the 2000 SC GOP primary where he was campaigning to get Roe overturned. It was this revelation more so than any rogue GOP bigot telephone push poll that contributed to Bush's victory. McCain had lots of credibility problems in SC. South Carolinians are more adept than NH and Mich repubs at spotting a liar. And in spotting a man that will support conservative policies.

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

And let me start by saying I'm way on Ben's side of this, but to echo Moe and Dan, the garbage piling up in this thread needs to stop, now, period, end of sentence. Argue the merits, don't argue each other's parentage.

I'm stopping back by in one hour and will edit accounts as needed. Are we all cool?

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

For someone who has been on the other side of this, I would think that you would handle this better, Ben.

You could have noted the inconsistencies and asked for some follow up first (given that you didn't give the interview and couldn't ask direct follow ups).

I am not surprised how this thread devolved seeing how it started.

Just as every cop is a criminal, and all the sinners saints - Sympathy for the Democrats

Mitt is pro-life. I suppose you would rather have a democrat as governor in MA. Don't penalize the guy for getting elected. He has made politics in MA more conservative and the policy there is much more pro-life than if a democrat was governor their. Go Mitt!

TheSnakeGuy

You wouldn't by chance be related to Cyndi Mosteller, would you?

Give the guy a break, he campaigned that as Governor, he would respect and enforce the law as it pertained to abortion. But that doesn't mean that he ever, for a minute, considered himself "pro-choice". Perhaps he wanted the voters of Massachusetts to percieve him as Pro-Choice, but that still doesn't mean that is how he perceives himself. Perhaps his definition of pro-choice is a bit flawed, just as his understanding of the term "tar baby" was a bit insensitive to those seeking to take offense.

Unfortunately, you have just put yourself in the same boat with those who are looking to get offended at the least bit provocation.

You do a disservice to conservatives by initiating partisan attacks at such an early stage in the process.

Agreed. This is totally uncalled for. A total hit piece, you can add my vote.

you're all wet. That's why this looks like a demand for absolute ideological purity on a single issue. In 1994, Jim Webb was a Republican, now he's running for the Senate as a Democrat.

When I consider the possible candidates, the only ones I could vote for are Giuliani or Romney. I wouldn't vote for McCain for anything because I don't trust his judgment. If he were the Republican nominee, I wouldn't vote for president. Frist is charisma free and a weak leader. Allen has shown that he isn't ready for prime time. Although Giuliani is pro-abortion rights, I doubt that he'd nominate a pro-choice judge to SCOTUS and risk being blocked by his own party.

Romney may have been less than forthright in the past about his real feelings about abortion, but if his religion is an indication he would oppose making abortion a Constitutional Right, except in the case of rape or saving the life of the mother. On the other hand, I doubt that he believes that every fertilized ovum is a new soul. I'm a Mormon and I don't. I believe that we should welcome children and be responsible for our choices regarding sexual activity. Children are a gift of God and I doubt very much that he will excuse us for engaging in recreational sex without accepting responsibility for the results.

That may not be sufficiently doctrinaire for the right to life purists here, but it's not likely that he would nominate someone for the Supreme Court who thinks Roe v. Wade should stand, because 1. it's bad constitutional jurisprudence; 2. it intrudes into an area that property belongs to the states and 3. it fails to take into account the needs of society for a steady supply of good citizens. Also, our society will be judged as immoral, just as the Romans and Greeks have been if we justify this kind of attitude toward innocent life.

Romney is unlikely to be the candidate of the party, but when people hear him speak and hear his ideas, they're impressed. He has excellent credentials for the job, and it's a job that doesn't involve the abortion issue nearly as much as it requires a good manager. I think that Bush has set a high standard for appointing justices, and any future president will be expected to meet it.

"I'd like to be the King of all Londinium and wear a shiny hat." A Captain Malcom Reynolds quote no less!

You stole my reply!

Bah, I'm gonna use it anyway.

Shiny!

absentee

Second, I think the haggling by the Romneyites and anti-Romneyites over the quote in the governor's interview in which he claims (falsely) to have never been pro-choice really underscores a much larger issue, one to which I have devoted considerable time on this site in the past. That is that the Pro-Romney forces here at Redstate and in the blogosphere in general like to play fast and loose with the facts.

Truthfully, I am not opposed to what Romney stands for so much as I am simply uneasy with the sense I get that he and his supporters would gladly endorse the eating of Irish babies if that would further their ends.

Perhaps - as people like JJfuller or Jbonham will surely argue - I am just not old enough or wise enough to appreciate the finer nuances of a mature politician framing his campaign for national office. If that is so, then I hope I die young and stupid.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Seem to think were all brainless fools. It's fun to throw out accusations like the ones you throw. Romney never said he was not pro-choice, only that he never used the label. He was pretty upfront about his previous stance.

This would be in line previous diaries of yours where you take an inch and turn it into a mile concerning Romney.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

Romney never said he was not pro-choice, only that he never used the label. He was pretty upfront about his previous stance.

Let's see, the new line is he was pro-choice but didn't use the label. Oh, heck, do I really have to explain how silly that argument is?

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

I see you're still a one-trick pony:

http://www.redstate.com/content/13628

Weren't you going to do something about that? Not that I expected a change.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

I don't think he ever claimed to be anything else. Much like the people with sign ons like McCain08.

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

Since I wrote that I have become a precinct commitee person her in Lake County and the Illinois Director of Legacy Network, a National not-for-profit pro-family lobbying group with several thousand members. It's focus is on family issues and litigating the porn industry.

Not to mention my wife is due with our third child and I have a career outside of politics as a violist as well as being pretty avid muscle car enthusiast

Sorry, I haven't had so much time to go back and forth with you RS. I do miss it. It is fun to write a couple things here again.

I guess I am actually a multiple trick pony.

www.mymanmitt.com
www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com
www.1967buickspecial.blogspot.com

How dare you engage in politics and not just talk about it on RS. You obviously have no credibility.

Not only that since you have already decided to advocate a candidate you have no credibility talking about him anymore. You must be like the media and never appear to make up your mind. Come on Jason you've got to understand the rules.

And I don't need a life I have RS ;)

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

where do you play your fiddle?

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

muscle cars you can't be all bad. And in all sincerity, congratulations on your wife's pregnancy. That's wonderful.

A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli

Great diary,

Romney is not trustworthy, because he has no principles greater than winning the next election. He's not only changed on abortion, but he's changed on his stance on Homosexual Rights as well. The man has no consistency and I don't trust him. There's a difference between being a politician and being someone who will say absolutely anything to get elected. Romney is the latter.

Adam's Blog
The Adam Graham Program

Romney is a politician. Can you name a politician, past or present, that you honestly believe has a greater priority than winning elections and expanding power? Or for that matter a politician, past or present, who hasn't at some time in their career changed their position on an issue?

Romney says he is pro-life. If you don't want to believe him that's your choice. But all the flopping and twitching over some of his past statements strikes me as a bit hypocritical. The guy is one of us whether you like him or not. He's a straight up Republican who has done a bang up job governing a state notorious for corruption and fiscal insanity. He's as least as qualified as ANY Senator who is considering a run at the presidency. I think he would defeat Hillary in a landslide. He would certainly have my vote, and I would hope he would have yours if he wins the nomination.

a one issues guy. If you are not pro-life you will not get my vote. Period. I can't do it. I understand there will be issues in which I disagree with but I can still vote for that person but not this one. I have to know exactly wherre you stand.
"Peace had a chance"

So lets put it this way, would you militant pro-lifers support a socialist and anti-terror war pro-lifer over a fiscal conservative pro-terror war pro-choicer?

I am pro-life, but I realize it does not matter if I am pro-life if the nation is broke and being overran by Islamic terrorists.

I believe people can change their positions like Reagan did on abortion and be honest. Even if Romney was pro-choice, I would still support him because there are other national problems he will handle well.

A better question to ask Romney is what kind of judges would he appoint to the SCOTUS because it matters more than the candidate being pro-life per say.

First you feebly attempt the 'electability' argument without actually showing Romney to be 'electable', then you try the Appeal to Reagan™ while ignoring that the problem here is DISHONESTY about past record (if he did have a heartfelt conversion, he wouldn't have to lie about his past), then you try the Giuliani maneuver of arguing judges, which his supporters HAVE to try because their guy is undoubtedly pro-abortion.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

And there is nothing feeble about RyanThompsan's argument. You may not like it, but it resonates with a lot of people here, who are just as bright as you. He makes a good point. How far are pro-lifers willing to stick to there guns? Thats a legitimate question. Why do you knock him down for this?

I think Ryan was stating that Romney has so many positives that they outshine whatever negative you and others are complaining about, I don't think anyone thinks Romney is perfect.

I am pro-life. Would I vote for a pro-life socialist anti-war candidate over a pro-choice strong on defense capitilist? Probably not.

Where did Romney lied about his past? Please show me were Romney said he was Pro-Choice in the past. You can't.

All Romney said was he wasn't comfortable with the pro-choice label. He did not deny that he supported legalized abortion, he actually discussed how he once did. There was no deception because no one left thinking he never supported legalized abortion. I think that's honest, and I consider myself to be an honest person.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

It's a threadjack - a worthy subject for discussion - but a threadjack regardless.

And it doesn't answer the fact that, to be completely honest, Mitt's answer stunk. He's on record, on video, as being in favor of "Protecting a Woman's Right To Chose" and all that in both 1994 and again in 2002. In the event you don't care to trust my memory, and I was a precinct captain in Mitt's 2002 campaign, feel free to use whatever search engine you like - it's all out there.

If he's had a "conversion" - even a political one - then he needs to say so. But his answer to what is, honestly, a legit question - and one that is going to come up over and over again regardless of how legit it actually is - was contrived and painful.

He needs to do better. Quickly.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

Seems like he was addressing the topic of the original post.

And it doesn't answer the fact that, to be completely honest, Mitt's answer stunk. He's on record, on video, as being in favor of "Protecting a Woman's Right To Chose" and all that in both 1994 and again in 2002. In the event you don't care to trust my memory, and I was a precinct captain in Mitt's 2002 campaign, feel free to use whatever search engine you like - it's all out there.

I am very well aware of what he said, actually I tell most people this when they ask me about Romney. But, what he said yesterday was that he didn't care for the label. Sorry if you didn't like his answer, but it doesn't make it a lie like this diary claims.

Again I ask find me a quote where he says "I am pro-choice" until then his statement saying that he did not care for the term pro-choice is pretty legit.

www.illinoisans4mitt.blogspot.com

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


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