Video: Romney defends abortion rights in 2002
posted at 4:49 pm on February 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In theory, stuff like this shouldn’t hurt him. We all know he’s reversed course on abortion; I’ve even posted video of it in the past. But it does hurt him, I think, because it reminds people of how recent his “awakening” was. Until I saw this, I’d assumed he made the switch sometime in the late 90s or early 00s. Nuh uh; a little googling reveals that he didn’t embrace the social con within until 2005 or so, two years after he became governor and, coincidentally, around the time the murmurs started about him running for president.
Obviously Giuliani won’t touch this but I’ll be surprised if we don’t see a snippet pop up in McCain’s ads (and Hunter’s and Brownback’s ads, if anyone cares) and soon: St. John needs him out of the race so he can run to Rudy’s right. And while his record on abortion isn’t spotless either, he’s at least been voting the right way for years and, so far as I know, hasn’t got any soundbites as damning as this waiting to be used against him.
Mostly unrelated exit question: Is Rudy running for the right office? The still from the ad at the link is awfully compelling.
Update: Ruth Marcus says she interviewed Romney about abortion in early 2005.
I reprint so much of Romney’s answer (you can read or listen to the full exchange online) because its baroque circumlocutions seemed to say so much about him. It was hard to know what Romney actually thought about abortion rights other than that this was a political minefield it was best to avoid stepping into for as long as possible.
But it was also hard to see how a man with deeply held convictions on abortion rights — either for or against — could take a position so calibrated and inconclusive. Listening to Romney that day was like watching a chameleon in the fleeting moment that its color changes to suit its environment. Indeed, several months later, after vetoing a bill to expand access to emergency contraception, Romney wrote in the Boston Globe about how his views on the subject had “evolved and deepened.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Does he even matter? He’s trailing Gingrich who isn’t even running (yet).
RightWinged on February 21, 2007 at 4:52 PM
I think The Onion Giuliani piece is in pretty poor taste.
JammieWearingFool on February 21, 2007 at 5:03 PM
Could there be a more uninspiring group of Republican candidates?
thirteen28 on February 21, 2007 at 5:06 PM
Evans-Novak Political Report for 2/21:
“House Republican opponents of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for the presidential nomination are coalescing around former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, forgiving and forgetting his liberalism of a dozen years earlier. Romney is the fastest rising of the Republican candidates.”
Zetterson on February 21, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Agreed……
They think that is funny?
PinkyBigglesworth on February 21, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Draft Cheney. That’ll get this race heated up.
Limerick on February 21, 2007 at 5:14 PM
I read the WaPo excerpts from the 2005 interview. It’s dated February 28th, not quite two years ago.
Anytime a politician says he is “personally prolife” I always get ready for him to justify being publicly prochoice. Talking about not changing the law was a pretty safe thing for him to say in a liberal state like Massachusetts. The following quote is very disturbing to me and IMO undercuts anything he might have said about being personally prolife:
If, by any wild chance, the Mass legislature did make some change in the abortion law, why would anyone who is personally prolife veto it?
Ruth Marcus is right, she caught the moment when the chameleon was that sort of strange color as it changes from one shade to another.
INC on February 21, 2007 at 5:22 PM
In this clip he is just saying what you have to say to get elected governer in Massachusetts these days, but he does stay just this side of the line of really advocating for abortion rights. All he says is that he is in favor of preserving and protecting the right to abortion. Prior to the Civil War, every President and Congressman had to swear and oath to preserve and protect a constitution that had the 3/5 rule. That doesn’t mean they all thought it was right. Romney careful avoids giving a such a clear answer, and his opponent was too stupid to pick up on the distinction he was making (also too stupid to pick up on a lot of other things, which is why she lost).
pedestrian on February 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
It’s pretty sad when our best chance of winning is with McCain. Romney turns me off, big-time. B/w his recent “awakening”, his religion (I couldn’t care less but many do) and his too clever by half behavior, I don’t think he stands a chance. I see a showdown b/w McCain and Giuliani.
RW Wacko on February 21, 2007 at 5:23 PM
No.
Bugler on February 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Yeah, The Onion piece stinks.
But as for Romney, it’s hard to say if this will really hurt him or merely be rallied upon by the media as a way of poking holes in armor of the most conservative of the frontrunners to throw their hat in.
Giuliani’s stance on Partial Birth Abortion is extremely troubling for me. Romney’s abortion reversal shows a confusion that’s also difficult. However, abortion is not the most important issue of our time. Although abortion can “set the tone” of a country and its policies, it is not necessarily the be-all end-all of a country’s existence.
For instance, if somehow we became so immersed in the talk about aborion that we elected a stealth manchurian candidate who would surrender our sovereignty to those who, perhaps, practice Shar’ia law, all of this abortion talk would be moot. As would gay rights, the environment, and many other liberal cause celebres.
It’s important to be well versed on Romney’s evolution on this subject to be able to engage liberals in meaningful debate but the real questions regarding his electability are -what is his plan for fighting the Hitlers of our time/global jihad? and -what is his plan for securing our nation’s soveriegnty?
NTWR on February 21, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Is that article supposed to be disenchanting? Because I’d pay to see him show up at every state function with a bullhorn.
Tanya on February 21, 2007 at 5:25 PM
You wouldn’t think so, no.
But don’t jinx it.
Lawrence on February 21, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Hehehe. That’s why I worship you!
Allahpundit on February 21, 2007 at 5:30 PM
I feel the same way thirteen28, none of the mainstream candidates so far have any conviction. Of the top 5 I think Gingrich has the most backbone, but I don’t think he has the chemistry it takes to win. I like Tancredo but I doubt he can overcome his lack of name recognition.
Maxx on February 21, 2007 at 5:31 PM
Hahaha!
Tanya on February 21, 2007 at 5:36 PM
I literally changed, what was a previously long-held pro-choice stance, during one particular Sunday mass back in 2001.
A visiting priest gave one of the most compelling yet non-judgmental homilies I’d ever heard — one that still moves me to this day. Parishioners actually stood and applauded when he’d finished.
People change.
The Ugly American on February 21, 2007 at 5:48 PM
meh.
if he’s fakin’ it to get the religious vote so he can turn around and govern from the constitution rather than the bible, i’m happy with that strategy.
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 5:51 PM
I would think that would make him a liar…you are ok with that?
EnochCain on February 21, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Anytime a politician says he is “personally prolife” but “feels that he should not push his morals on other people” guarantees I won’t vote for him/her. While I am pro-life, I would do the same thing even if i was pro-choice. These people are not fit to be in any position of power. Someone who says that he believes an act is murder but won’t do anything about it because of public opinion a NAZI as far as I’m concerned. I’d sooner vote in a nutty PETA activist who would send cops to my house and rip a hamburger out of my mouth at dinner time than someone like Frankenkerry or Romney.
Darth Executor on February 21, 2007 at 6:10 PM
So. . . a candidate for governor in Massachusetts said that he would uphold the law as interpreted by the SCOTUS in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
THE HORROR!!!
Troy Rasmussen on February 21, 2007 at 6:12 PM
I think we have a nominally right-wing version of Waffles here.
PRCalDude on February 21, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Huh? McCain has absolutely zero chance of winning the GOP nomination. His only chance of winning the Presidency would be to run as a Democrat, for which he would easily win the nomination.
Gregor on February 21, 2007 at 6:25 PM
I trust that Romney is conservative about as much as I trust that Hillary is moderate.
Gregor on February 21, 2007 at 6:27 PM
2000. Um, 1996. 1992, too. 1988, while we’re at it.
spmat on February 21, 2007 at 6:32 PM
Huh?
Watcher on February 21, 2007 at 6:53 PM
i wouldn’t prefer it, but if he’s lying to the christians, i’m okay with it. it’s possibly the only way to get the party back, is to trick them and have them wake up one day all of a suddenly shocked to discover that there are other people with other views in the party.
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 7:17 PM
… nominally right-wing …
PRCalDude on February 21, 2007 at 6:16 PM
there’s no way he can be a true conservative - he’s a mormon! that would be like having a gay or a mexican or a hindu or a jew calling themselves “conservative.”
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 7:22 PM
[quote]Huh?
Watcher on February 21, 2007 at 6:53 PM
[/quote]
Person X believes Y is murder
Person X does not want to legislate against Y because population Z disagree that Y is really murder.
Replace X,Y and Z with actual people and actions, and see how it sounds:
Johan believes gassing jews is murder
Johan does not want to legislate against gassing jews because the German people disagree that gassing jews is really murder.
Mohamed believes stoning rape victims for “inappropriate proximity” is murder
Mohamed does not want to legislate against stoning rape victims because the Saudi people disagree that stoning rape victims is really murder.
John Kerry believes abortion is murder.
John Kerry does not want to legislate against abortion because the American people disagree that abortion is really murder.
Regardless of whether Y is murder or not, X believes it is and would stand back and do nothing because he doesn’t want to upset Z. This, IMO, makes X nazi scum.
Darth Executor on February 21, 2007 at 7:32 PM
PRCalDude,
sorry. i think i aimed my sarchasm at the wrong target with that last post.
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 7:38 PM
I do not like liars no matter who they are lying to…if they will lie to one group they will lie to them all.
EnochCain on February 21, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Good point.
As Bill Murray said in ‘Stripes’ right after his girlfriend walked out on him: “And then, depression set in.”
thirteen28 on February 21, 2007 at 7:44 PM
I like having competent liars who don’t get caught on my side.
Darth Executor on February 21, 2007 at 7:51 PM
So Romney changed his view on abortion from when he was a governor to when he ran for the presidency. So did Reagan. Look it up.
I never cease to be amused by the constant bitching about politicians changing their views when they all do it everyday. The whole point of a democracy is to debate topics and hope to change and influence. If we didn’t believe this we could dispense with Congress and just vote on referendums.
I could give a crap about a candidates religion. I am voting for President not a minister. I want someone who has strong executive skills, is a fiscal conservative, strong on national defense and will nominate strict constructionist judges. Romney seems to rate pretty well on all counts. And if he does get elected and nominates a judge who relies on the constitution, as he has said he will and his fight against gay marriage would indicate, the abortion issue will take care of itself.
JackStraw on February 21, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Cowards all. Romney is scared to death to be thought of as pro-life, even though he rejects pro-choice as a label as well. The one moment Romney attempted to be on offense in that clip he tried to point out that his opponent was pro-life early in her political career.
Is it so bad now that slapping a pro-life label on a candidate is all it takes to make them unelectable? Disgusting. We are truly through the looking glass.
Freelancer on February 21, 2007 at 8:06 PM
At the very least, you have a penchant for making slanderous, sweeping generalizations. I find you offensive. It’s okay though — I realize that it may be your only redeeming and/or endearing quality.
On a more serious note, is it possibly for ANYONE to choose politics as their life’s work/principal occupation and NOT be a liar. (Behold the awfulness of my innate cynicism as rears it ugly head.)
CyberCipher on February 21, 2007 at 8:12 PM
AP,
It will only hurt Mitt if people take the lazy way of processing his evolving position over the years.
Just as he promised, Mitt did not change the abortion laws as governor. But he never promised he would expand upon those laws, which is what new bills put on his desk would be. So, he had no obligation to sign new law.
I see this as the actions of a man who kept his word to the electorate but did not become a liberal kool-aid drinker. That is not flip-flopping on an issue, and neither is having your position evolve, when new issues (stem-cell) complicate the issue beyond the context of his original comments. In 1995 The Dicky amendment prohibited federal funds to be used in stem cell research where embryos would be created or destroyed. The issue of creating embryos just to destroy them is a very new issue and his position on abortion has evolved because of it.
This guy most possible is the real deal. Well, as real a deal as any politicain can be anyway. He means what he says and says what he means and we need to listen very carefully to his promises, KNOWING that he is a conservative, and short of campaign promises, he will promote and defend conservative values.
I’ll bet book of mormons to korans that he’ll be a kick ass CoC too!
csdeven on February 21, 2007 at 8:22 PM
From http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values
Governor Romney: “I am pro-life.”
His only flip-flop was that he previously rejected both pro-life and pro-choice labels. Now he accepts pro-life. I think his statements as governer were Clinton-esque in their finely parsed use of words protect and defend, but that’s what lawyers do and it’s our job to cut through it. he saw his job as Gov of Mass was to be fiscal conservative and hold his nose at the social-lib stuff, realizing that is the only way to get a Republican in office there. He was just making promises of what he was going to do, and he never said he personally believed in those positions. Now he is saying what he actually believes in.
pedestrian on February 21, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Gingrich, Giuliani, Steele please step forward. All of those in the back, you’re going home.
- The Cat
MirCat on February 21, 2007 at 8:56 PM
cyber, explain to me, how slanderous are my admitedly sweeping generalizations? are you saying that it hasn’t been said in these comments that romney is disqualified on the basis of being a mormon? can a gay man be a “true” republican? republican organizer lynn munsel says precisely and unequivocably “no”. if a mexican were to run for president, are you prepared to wager money that someone you’ve been posting alongside in these comments wouldn’t announce him as a manchurian candidate for the foreign invasion force? it’s nice to reason that we’re a judeo-christian nation. where does that leave hindus? atheists? muslems? etc. “judeo-christian” doesn’t nessesarily have to imply exclusion of all others, but katherine harris blew the lid off that one, didn’t she?
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Wow. A Republican in MA giving support to abortion. Color me shocked. I’m willing to take him on his word that he is against it now.
VinceP1974 on February 21, 2007 at 9:14 PM
So tell me jummy, what do you think of :
1) atheist conservatives, or
2) agnostic conservatives.
(I just want to see how AllahPundit reacts. This one’s his thread ya’ know. I think everyone deserves fair warning.)
CyberCipher on February 21, 2007 at 9:15 PM
I’m at a loss why concervatvies would go back and search for reasons to not like Romney from old campaigns. Why not view his actual record as govenor, doesnt that make more sense?
Furthermore it is true to my recollection that when running for Govenor he always said in effect “this is the policy I promise” not “this is what I believe”. He was challenged as faking his pro-choice position to get elected. If you pay attention to the video that essentially is what his opponent says right there.
Resolute on February 21, 2007 at 9:16 PM
Both Christians and conservatives (two different and sometimes overlapping groups of people) include diverse mixes of people. By making your sweeping generalizations about “those Christian people” you are guilty of the very thing that you seem to find objectionable.
CyberCipher on February 21, 2007 at 9:30 PM
Reminds me of people from the LP…maybe they want a party that doesn’t lose every election.
EnochCain on February 21, 2007 at 9:34 PM
cyber,
i am an atheist conservative.
let me bring some clarity to all this for you. i don’t consider it my role as a conservative who is an atheist to lend cover to christians’ political aggression. christians do not have the privlege of retreating behind me after one provacative move or another when i know i’ll be strong armed out by the very same people when it comes time to set the agenda.
the republicans are going to lose this next election because of christians and their stupid litmus test. that’s forgone. i’m going to use these next four years doing everything i can to alienate christians from my republican party and my conservative movement so this never happens again.
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 9:39 PM
Did he keep his promise and not interfere in MA abortion laws?
RW Wacko on February 21, 2007 at 9:45 PM
Sorry, question answered earlier
RW Wacko on February 21, 2007 at 9:46 PM
If you think that the Republicans can win Predidential elections by alienating Christians, then I am absolutely CERTAIN that you do not understand the statistics of our national voting demographics. And if you don’t understand simple arithmetic like this, I suspect that you will ALWAYS be unhappy and disappointed, no matter HOW many Christians that you manage to alienate.
CyberCipher on February 21, 2007 at 9:49 PM
christians are doing an awesome job winning elections for democrats. root and branch. it’s because of christians’ siezure of the social agenda that the conservative movement hasn’t been able to develop a coherant, identifiably conservative social theory which is worthy of a secular political culture resting on ther pillars of pluralism and equality before the law.
it would be no loss to me, the party, the movement or the nation if the christian movement went ahead to overtly win elections for the dems. honestly. because christians are not nessesarily conservatives or even nationalists. a christian could just as easily be hiding a weapons cache for the sandinistas as the could be waving the flag while demanding that we change the constitution on behalf of their theory of what “god” approves of… lest they walk.
well, walk.
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 9:51 PM
Dude, you just come off as someone who hates Christians…I am a Christian and I do not want to change the constitution or legislate morality etc.
EnochCain on February 21, 2007 at 9:54 PM
If you think that the Republicans can win Predidential
you know what? i don’t think christians can afford to be alienated from the republican party.
weren’t you just a moment ago using ap as a human shield? do you think a christian party standing alone as only christian can survive our lazais fairre culture any better than than the dour, hirsuit knuckle-strikers of the 70’s feminist movement?
so, take your ball and go home.
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 9:59 PM
You overestimate the discernment of Christians in the United States. Rick Warren, probably the most well known ‘evangelical’ in the United States, had Barack Obama come speak at his church. Christians in this country really don’t know what they believe, and many just say they’re ‘Christian’, because they don’t know any better, or because it’s cultural. This ‘litmus test’ you describe, what exactly is it?
PRCalDude on February 21, 2007 at 10:03 PM
Jummy,
Most of what you write against Christians is ill-defined vitriolic screed, now that I’ve scrolled more thoroughly through your comments. Do you have any hard data for anything you say? Never mind. Forget I tried to engage you.
PRCalDude on February 21, 2007 at 10:06 PM
The underlying presumption (of yours) here is that “political aggression” and “strong arm” tactics are somehow innate characteristics of ALL PEOPLE that call themselves Christians. Yes, there ARE people, some of them in very powerful and influential positions, that try to impose “litmus tests” and/or use or practice exclusionary tactics (bigotry?) — I would not try to make you believe otherwise. I simply do not believe that ALL PEOPLE that call themselves Christians think and act in that way. Furthermore, I would argue that the incidence of this sort of behavior is not any more or less common among people that call themselves Christians than it is among any other group of people. Bigotry is a part of human nature. Period. You will find it among liberals, Democrats, atheists, Jews, Gays, Hindus, conservatives, and Christians. No group is immune. But I would argue that the Christians are no worse that any other group. Do YOU believe that they are worse than other groups of people?
CyberCipher on February 21, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Here Folks finally the seeeecrets to Romney’s religion revealed!
Magic Corn, Chubby elves!
-Wasteland Man
P.S. Boy it looks like him though. Gets my vote 08. ^.^
WastelandMan on February 21, 2007 at 10:08 PM
You remind of the liberals that hate the near enemy (Christians) SO MUCH, that you can not see the far more lethal enemy (the Islamofascist Jihadists). Haven’t you been reading the adjacent threads regarding our education system in the U.S.? The liberals have already brainwashed the vast majority of the population while they were still school children. Without the Christians, you may find “purity” for your ideology, but it won’t matter. You will be (very nearly) alone, and you will soon be dead (if the Jihadists and the liberals have their way). Which part of simple arithmetic don’t you understand?
CyberCipher on February 21, 2007 at 10:19 PM
well, i’m not. outwardly, i invest a lot of energy indefending the christian right; because of the “right” part. it’s easy when the line to refute is a bunch of hyperbolic nonsense about the war being a “christianist crusade” waged by an “american taliban”. not so much when i’m challenged with reasonable questions as to why the conservative movement wants to usurp the rights of the states to define marriage however they wish with a federal ammendment excluding gay couples. there is a lot of complexity to the issue further than what i described and some thoughtfull christians have contributed to my regard of that complexity. but i know despite all of those who would pipe up in the face of harsh rebuke to offer alternate explainations that at root the reasoning is “it’s in the bible.” that is not acceptable.
and it’s not solely that issue by a long shot. the whole span during which conservative republicans dedicated themselves to demonstrating how broadly they can define “life” by keeping a single braindead woman from the inevitable, they neglected real initiatives which could have benefitid millions of living people, like school choice. we never got school choice out of our congressional majority and the plug got pulled on schiavo anyway.
never again.
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 10:27 PM
To the other Christian participants here at HotAir:
So. It would seem that some of the conservative “purists” in the Republican party want to be free of us Christians so that they can pursue ideological nirvana. It would seem that we now live in a country, originally founded on the principle of religious freedom, where people that hold religious convictions are now simply unwelcome in a ubiquitous and universal sense (no matter what political party that they show an interest in). Is that it? Kinda’ ironic, don’t you think?
I think AllahPundit should start a new thread. The title/topic should read something like “Who hates the Christians most of all?” Everyone should be invited to participate. Muslims, liberals, conservatives, atheists, the MSM — everybody.
In the interests of giving my enemies (like jummy) fair warning, let it be said right up front that we Christians count it all joy when we are persecuted, and that we will not hesitate to pray for those that hate us.
CyberCipher on February 21, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I have been seeing this continual comparison of Romney to Reagan. I decided to spend some time to track down Reagan’s timeline as he changed his stance on abortion.
First, one more note on Romney: Just last year Romney signed Massachusett’s Commonwealth Care health insurance plan that includes abortion services.
As for Reagan, I think I linked a few weeks ago to this column by Fred Barnes Choosing Life How pro-lifers become pro-lifers. In it, he wrote:
My current quest was to see if I could find any track record for Reagan between 1967 and 1980. I came up with this:
1. Lou Cannon in his book Governor Reagan His Rise to Power mentions on page 213, that in 1970 Reagan successfully opposed legislative attempts to further liberalize abortion law. I cannot find another reference to this.
2. On a Marxist website, (which I won’t link to, but you can search if you like) in an article titled Our Bodies! Our Choice! Winning the Fight for Reproductive Rights by Evelyn Sell, she writes:
3. TIME Magazine, Uproar over Abortion, February 16, 1976, discussing Carter, Reagan and Ford on abortion:
From these bits and pieces I have concluded it is far too early to compare Romney to Reagan. Reagan’s track record consistently moves to the prolife position. Romney has yet to convince me.
INC on February 21, 2007 at 10:53 PM
cyber,
spoken like a marxist demagogue. you are simultaneously able to threaten that christians hold all of the chips - indeed they are 70% of us - while portraying them as the meek victims of “hate” from all quarters. the afsc couldn’t have put on a better performance.
jummy on February 21, 2007 at 10:57 PM
Does that mean you owe me a standing ovation? Or even an encore? Lighten up dude. There are only a FEW rascals among us Christians — and they are easy to identify since most are televangelists. Smile!
CyberCipher on February 21, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Fair enough. You want to quote Fred Barnes, let’s use all his words.
If only he had a little more time in office? You mean like Romney? No that couldn’t be, he is a one term governor just like Reagan was.
You guys can keep this crap up forever but it won’t change the facts. Reagan was at least as much a social liberal in a socially liberal state as Romney was. More even. Romney has never been divorced.
All this crap about he makes me uneasy and I don’t trust him in my gut is lame. He is as solid as an actor from Hollywood ever was. If you are twisted about the Mormon thing then just admit it. Honestly look at his record, his accomplishments, his educational and buisness accomplishments, there is no other candidate on either side of the aisle who comes close.
Rudy is pro-abortion. McCain is a blowhard who is dying to kiss the ass of any evangelical he can grab after trashing them last election..and Romney is a phony? Please.
JackStraw on February 21, 2007 at 11:33 PM
The phrase was more experienced in office. Reagan was governor of California for two terms, 1967-1975. The original bill was obviously during his first year as governor.
I was quoting Barnes to show the 1967 and 1980 gap, and to describe the change. I then tried to see if I could find anything within those 13 years that would show a move over a long period of time. I didn’t know when Reagan changed his mind.
The three sources I mentioned cited 1970, 1973, and 1975, as dates indicating Reagan taking a prolife position.
Nowhere did I mention Mormonism in the comment, and I don’t believe I ever have mentioned it at any time. Please do not impugn my motives.
INC on February 21, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Those dates were rather 1970, 1973, and 1976 (not 1975).
INC on February 21, 2007 at 11:51 PM
I’m not impugning your motives. Just your facts.
As you said, when Reagan passed a pro-abortion bill, which increased abortions and is something Romney never did, it was in his first term.
I have never heard one substanitive reason to dislike Romney other than he has changed his position on some issues as has every other politician in the time of man and that he is a Mormon.
So now that we have established that evolving on the position of abortion is not an issue for a conservative candidate and Romney’s executive, education, view on judges, the war on islamic terrorism and personal hygiene record are better than or equal to every other candidate in the race, what other reason is there other than he sucks less than Rudy and McCain in a national election?
JackStraw on February 22, 2007 at 12:13 AM
What human being has maintained the same idealology throught their entire lives?
As humans we are all constantly evolving what we think and believe in relation to the world around us.
1) He gets “it”, Jihad’s war on non-beleivers. Most of the candidates, republicans and democrats dont get “it”, the most important issue of our time. This war is in our streets, our neighborhoods, our schools, and our government.
Our current president doesn’t even get “it”.
2) He is for border enforcement.
3) He is for making Bush tax cuts permanent and supports a simpler tax code.
4) He has promisied to appoint conservative judges.
paulsur on February 22, 2007 at 2:43 PM
Abortion, abortion, abortion
You guys are as bad as the Democrats. You guys act as if it were a matter of life or death… (just kidding)
Muslims want to destroy our way of life. Aging hippies (er, baby-boomers) are going to bankrupt are government with in the next twenty years, and I cannot order a hamburger in LA because I don’t speak Spanish — under population is not a problem, and all you guys care about is what to do with unborn fetuses.
Its simple. The founding fathers deleted the abortion clause before they ratified the Constitution. Its not in there. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, the Constitution is silent. The numb nut judges messed up with Rose v. Wade. It should be overturned and the states should decide. (Come to California for a vacation in the sun if you want to kill your baby)
It is important to appoint originalist judges (for a whole host of reasons), but I’m just tired of the abortion thing. That is why I’m leaning towards Giuliani.
He will appoint judges like Roberts and Alito. That’s good enough for me. What’s his view on abortion — WHO CARES. He is not going to issue an executive order requiring conservative bloggers to have abortions against their will. Other than appoint judges, he is irrelevant to this irrelevant issue.
tommylotto on February 22, 2007 at 4:10 PM
This is a thread about Romney and abortion and why he has changed his mind. It’s not Romney and all other policy statements.
However, since that was brought up, I will say that he has changed his mind on several fronts. And the question remains, why?
My entire point with the references and dates regarding Reagan is that there was a shift seen in his thinking that does not seem to be tied to political expediency.
As for Romney, it is too soon to tell. I, for one, am skeptical.
If someone promises to do something, you need some reason to believe they will follow through.
I’m not saying I would never vote for Romney, I’m just unconvinced.
INC on February 22, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Summary:
Romney running for govenor of a liberal state: I promose not to criminalize abortions
he follows his promise
Romney running for pres: I am pro-life
if you think about this logically it is pretty silly argument to fret that he is going to do something encouraging abortion as Pres
I dont even understand this issue. Roe vs wade is in effect. It isnt changeing anytime soon. To make this the primary issue to vote on in this day and age in the current circumstances borders on totally bizarre and absurd to me. Hello western civilization is under siege from outside its borders lets spend all out time arguing about internal social policy!
Resolute on February 22, 2007 at 7:05 PM